Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Press (Privacy Legislation)

Mr. Ottaway: What plans he has to introduce privacy legislation applying to the press. [20156]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): We have no plans for general legislation on privacy. The data protection Bill will be concerned only with the privacy of personal information. The Human Rights Bill, which is before another place, simply incorporates into British domestic law obligations under the European convention on human rights to which this country has been subject continuously since the convention was ratified by the United Kingdom in 1951.

Mr. Ottaway: Given that the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that the Press Complaints Commission is a public authority and will therefore be bound to apply the principles of the European convention on human rights, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the PCC has worked so far, that it will work under its new code; and, if not, would it not be better to have a statutory right of privacy rather than leaving it to judge-made law that applies the principles of the convention?

Mr. Straw: We do not accept that there is a case for general legislation on privacy. Whether the judges develop what the hon. Gentleman describes as judge-made law on privacy is a matter for them and it would arise whether or not the European convention were incorporated and whether that particular form of incorporation were accepted. I know that the hon. Gentleman supports incorporation because he voted for a Bill in favour of incorporation that came before the House in 1987. As to the code, our guess—it can only be a guess—is that, in adjudicating between breaches of articles 8 and 10 of the convention, the courts will properly be bound to take into account the extent to which newspapers have complied with the Press Complaints Commission code.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is correct in his stance of not introducing legislation on privacy? Throughout my time as a Member of Parliament,

I have never had a letter from a constituent asking us to bring in a law to protect the great and the good—and, by and large, that is what it is all about. We hear the aristocracy and one or two other groups—and the Tories, from time to time—squealing and saying, "Protect us." I do not believe that we should and I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue with that stance even if some interfering busybodies in the common market want him to change his mind.

Mr. Straw: As to the latter group of people, it is worth pointing out that the data protection Bill has to be brought before the House only because of the data protection directive, which the previous Administration allowed to go through and which binds the United Kingdom Government and Parliament to introduce legislation in accordance with that directive by the middle of next year.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: A few months ago, the Home Secretary was given legal advice by the Lord Chancellor as to the possibility of judicially driven privacy law emerging from the incorporation of the ECHR into British law. More recently, the right hon. Gentleman was given exactly the opposite advice from the Lord Chancellor. I wonder which he thinks is right and preferable.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman knows enough about the workings of government to know that the Law Officers give legal advice, not the Lord Chancellor. His position is exactly as I expressed it at the press conference on the publication of the Human Rights Bill—that, while that is ultimately a matter for the courts and not for us, there is every indication that, if the Bill on incorporation is enacted as drafted, the Press Complaints Commission will be regarded under clause 6 of that Bill as a public authority for its purposes.

Voluntary Sector

Mr. Laxton: How many meetings he has had since 1 May with members of voluntary organisations to discuss the voluntary sector. [20157]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): Since 1 May, when responsibility for the voluntary sector and for volunteering was returned to the Home Office, there have been more than 100 meetings with members of voluntary organisations involving myself or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We have also assisted Ministers in other Departments, notably the Department for Education and Employment, which has various initiatives, with wide-ranging consultation on policies that have a direct impact on the work of voluntary organisations.

Mr. Laxton: In my constituency there are many long-standing, vibrant and well-organised voluntary organisations. In the north of my constituency is a recently charter-marked sub-post office, where David and Mary Peters are developing a contribution to some embryo organisations and voluntary groups. If I may, Madam Speaker, I will pass on to you a woollen stocking that they asked me to present to you, in appreciation of an afternoon that they spent in the Strangers Gallery on the day when their charter mark was awarded; I have it here, and I think that it will fit very nicely on your mantelpiece.
Does my right hon. Friend think, like David, Mary and myself, that the move to the Home Office of responsibility for voluntary organisations is welcome, has already been successful and gives a far higher profile to voluntary organisations? Does he agree that the more co-ordinated approach has proved a success?

Mr. Michael: I take it that there is only one stocking, because it is meant to be filled by Father Christmas for you, Madam Speaker, rather than by your legs. I had better leave the subject at that point.
I agree whole-heartedly with my hon. Friend. The move to the Home Office of responsibility for the voluntary sector and volunteering gives my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as the holder of one of the four great offices of state, the opportunity to put his weight behind our work in nurturing and working in partnership with the voluntary sector. We place a high priority on that, and I certainly welcome the opportunity to be involved in the work of that sector.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I welcome the continuing partnership with the voluntary organisations. Some of the meetings will have involved the flow of funds from the national lottery; is it lawful now for any of the money to be diverted from the five main streams in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993?

Mr. Michael: It is not for me to comment on lottery policies, which are dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but I know that many voluntary organisations receive money from the National Lottery Charities Board as well as from the other lottery streams. It is clearly good for the work of the sector to be nurtured in that way, and I know that my right hon. Friend is considering how to improve and increase the impact in a variety of ways.

Rev. Martin Smyth: While the Minister is talking about the role of the National Lottery Charities Board, will he bear in mind that many charities have been affected by the lottery and that there is at the same time a threat to charity shops in the tax proposals? Will he use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that those who volunteer are not endangered?

Mr. Michael: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has a great interest in the voluntary sector, as was demonstrated by the speech that he gave a couple of years ago to the Charities Aid Foundation. I am certain that he will listen to the representations that are made to him on this matter, as on so many others.

Mrs. Brinton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the voluntary sector has a key role to play in rebuilding society, especially in welfare to work and in my constituency of Peterborough? Does he agree that our programmes prove that the Government, unlike the previous Administration, want an effective partnership with the voluntary sector?

Mr. Michael: I agree with my hon. Friend: there is no doubt about the wish to build that partnership. I am aware, from the meeting that I attended in her constituency some time ago, of the healthy and vibrant nature of the voluntary sector there. The voluntary sector will make a

significant contribution to the new deal, which will give opportunities to young people both in the voluntary sector option and in the environmental task force, in which so many voluntary organisations will also be involved. That will give young people an opportunity and at the same time make a contribution to the community.

Licensing Hours

Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government on licensing hours for public houses and clubs. [20158]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I have received representations from consumer, police and industry interests, many of which support longer opening hours but I have not yet reached any firm conclusions. If we went down that path, we would want to resolve the difficulty of balancing the desire of consumers with the desire of neighbourhoods for peace after establishments close. I shall risk telling the hon. Gentleman that one example often quoted is opening hours in other European states. As I am trying to win his favour at this time of goodwill, I will not press that point too far.

Sir Teddy Taylor: When will the Government make a decision on the 1996 White Paper? Is the Minister aware of the huge public concern about further extension of hours? Bearing in mind that the crime figures show clearly that alcohol is a basic element in a great deal of violent crime, will not the Government give more time and attention to exposing the dangers of alcohol rather than to extending licensing hours when clubs are already open until 2 am and sometimes 3 am?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The previous Government held an extensive consultation exercise on licensing hours. To their surprise, and that of the industry, there was considerable concern about the issues that he raised, which we take seriously. That is why we are not rushing headlong into any reform along the lines that have been suggested, although I still would not want to rule that out. Genuine issues, many of which he raised, need to be covered.

Mr. Cawsey: I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister. In any review of licensing hours, will he take into account the night club industry? I say straight away that I have no personal interest in the industry. Those days are long gone. [Interruption.] Sad isn't it? Perhaps not at Christmas, but as a rule. The previous Government's review of licensing hours created no new trade; it merely moved it from night clubs to public houses. Will the Minister consult all appropriate interest groups in the industry so that he can reach a balanced judgment?

Mr. Howarth: Of course all the interest groups would be consulted on any proposals that we may make, though at present we have none. My hon. Friend is right that there is concern about the clubs industry. That is why police in many towns have argued in favour of staggering closing hours. I am not sure whether that is the answer. When I say "staggered", I mean it in the sense of time, not of people leaving such establishments.

Mr. Brooke: Does the Minister accept that, whatever the merits of the 24-hour city elsewhere, unless the


advance of tourism, leisure and entertainment in the swathe of central London between Covent Garden and Bayswater is tempered, the continuity of its residential communities, which confers so much stability on the heart of the capital, will be threatened?

Mr. Howarth: While I know less than the right hon. Gentleman, I am aware of the concerns of the part of London that he represents. That is why I said earlier that it is important to balance the consumers' desire to drink at different hours with the rights of neighbourhoods to peace and quiet after a reasonable time at night. That is difficult to get right, but, if there are to be reforms, such issues have to be tackled in a way that would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, his constituents and, indeed, mine.

Crime

Maria Eagle: If he will make a statement on the proportion of reported crimes which resulted in conviction in (a) 1980 and (b) 1996. [20159]

Mr. Michael: It is not possible to give the information in precisely the form requested. I have looked at the figures carefully, however, and the facts are startling. In 1980, one offender was convicted of indictable offences for every six crimes recorded by the police. By 1996, that rate had deteriorated from one in six to one in 17.

Maria Eagle: I thank the Minister for that reply, which seems to confirm how much worse clear-up rates became under the previous Conservative Administration. What reassurance can he give to the residents of Dymchurch estate in Speke who suffer from the behaviour of young children and youths wandering the streets with hammers and pickaxes, causing nuisance, vandalism, who are gradually demolishing that estate? What reassurance can my hon. Friend give my constituents that things will improve under this Administration?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right to say that things got progressively worse under the previous Administration. That deterioration was brought to light in a paper published by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary before the election. What we offer to overcome those problems is the contents of the Crime and Disorder Bill—the way in which we intend to speed up youth justice; action to nip things in the bud with young offenders; the move from repeat cautioning to the final warning system; and the introduction of sentences that will work as a deterrent.
In addition, the partnership approach will involve the police and local authorities in identifying problems such as those on estates such as Dymchurch. We will make sure that they take action to prevent problems from developing and to cut the existing crime rate.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Of more relevance, would the Minister confirm that the number of offences cleared up last year rose by 1 per cent. compared with the clear-up rate in 1995? Without any sense of complacency, would he not say that that represents a significant improvement given that the number of recorded crimes has dropped by 10 per cent. in the past four years?

Mr. Michael: Of course, that increase was from a low base and after a massive deterioration, as illustrated by the

figures that I gave earlier. The hon. Gentleman is being extremely complacent about the performance of his Government.

Dr. Iddon: Last Saturday night in my constituency, a young taxi driver, Quadir Hussain, aged 32, was involved in an incident with four passengers in his cab. As a result, he was so frightened that he fled and was pursued by one of those passengers across the extremely busy dual carriageway, the A666, where he was hit by an oncoming car and killed. This afternoon the drivers of private hire cars in Bolton are meeting to discuss the ever-rising number of incidents involving them. Will my hon. Friend please note that incident, and join the rest of the House in sending Mrs. Hussain and the rest of the Hussain family our sincerest condolences?

Mr. Michael: I certainly join my hon. Friend in expressing condolence. Any such event is absolutely horrific. We need to learn lessons from any such occasion, which can be done only when we know the full facts of the actual incident. My hon. Friend is right to remind us that individual events are not just statistics but involve human beings whose lives are often mined as a result, as are the lives of their loved ones.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: One statistic of the past 10 years that will cause concern to both sides of the House is the reduction of 24 per cent. in the conviction rate for rape, while the number of rapes recorded has increased threefold. The Home Secretary has said that he will legislate to stop intimidatory cross-examination of rape victims by those who are accused of raping them. In the past few days, however, the Lord Chancellor has warned of the serious difficulty in doing that, because of the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into British law. As in other subjects, which Cabinet Minister should we believe?

Mr. Michael: If there are problems with the ECHR, they would exist whether or not it was incorporated into our law, because we are signed up to that convention. The point is that there are serious difficulties in relation to the number of successful prosecutions for rape and increasing people's confidence in the system. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has established a working party of officials, which will report early in the new year on a range of matters, including ways to enable people to be certain that they will be protected and can give their evidence in a proper manner. We hope that that will make a great impact on the confidence felt by victims about how the system operates.

Metropolitan Police (Corruption)

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps he is taking to eliminate corruption in the Metropolitan police. [20160]

Mr. Straw: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is determined to root out corruption in the Metropolitan police. He has my full support in doing so. He has set out his strategy for tackling corruption in the "London Beat", his five-year strategic plan. He informs me that, as for all criminal offences, he is using proactive methods and intelligence to target suspects. I


await with interest the report and recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee in respect of the police complaints and discipline system more generally.

Mr. Prentice: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, which many people will find reassuring, especially after the astonishing news at the weekend that the police threw road blocks around the headquarters of the flying squad at Walthamstow. Will my right hon. Friend tell me again whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolitan will have all the resources necessary to root out corruption? More importantly, will he answer this simple question: why is corruption allowed to take root in the Metropolitan police? Why was there not a system in place to prevent that sort of thing happening?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He asks whether the Commissioner will ensure that all the resources necessary are available to the Metropolitan Police Complaints Investigation Bureau; that is the case, and the number of officers assigned to that bureau has recently been increased. I do not accept the implication of my hon. Friend's specific final question, that corruption is widespread in the Metropolitan police. The extent to which it occurs is a matter of profound concern; there should be no corruption in any police force. But no police officer should be in any doubt about the resolve of both the Commissioner and myself to ensure that any corruption is rooted out vigorously and firmly.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Preliminarily, does the Home Secretary accept that my colleagues and I wish him and his colleagues, you, Madam Speaker, and all hon. Members a happy Christmas? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I share his strong view on the unacceptability of corruption in the Metropolitan police or any other police force? Does the Home Secretary believe that the dismissing of officers from that force is a sufficient response to prima facie corrupt behaviour? Will he ensure that the Commissioner has all the legal powers he needs to deal ruthlessly with corrupt behaviour?

Mr. Straw: I return the right hon. Gentleman's slightly ambiguous compliment in a wholly unambiguous way. Labour Members wish the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends a happy Christmas and a good new year, particularly in their Front-Bench positions—long may their positions continue.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether I believed that the power to dismiss police officers was sufficient. It is necessary in respect of corrupt police officers; it may not be sufficient. I note fully what he says about the need for the Commissioner and other chief constables to have the full range of legal powers available to them. The implication of the right hon. Gentleman's question was that he believed that the current powers were not particularly satisfactory. I await with great interest the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on complaints and discipline in the police, on the basis of which I shall make recommendations to the House and the other place.

Mr. Mullin: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, as long ago as 1993, his predecessor had plans for a radical shake-up of disciplinary procedures in the police,

which would have greatly assisted the Commissioner in dealing with the most recent allegations of corruption, but that for some reason that shake-up did not occur? Can he think of any reason why the shake-up was not proceeded with? Will he assure the House that he will not give way to any of the mighty vested interests that might be pressing him to do little or nothing about the problems?

Mr. Straw: I know the reason that the shake-up was not proceeded with. The proposals were made in a speech to the Police Superintendents Association in 1993 by my predecessor but one, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). They were abandoned when my immediate predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), became Home Secretary. As I said to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), we await the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) chairs with such distinction. I repeat our determination, which is shared by all hon. Members on both sides of the House, to ensure that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and other chief constables have the full range of powers effectively and ruthlessly to root out corruption inside the police service.

Repeat Offenders

Mr. Loughton: What plans he has to make special sentencing powers available to courts for repeat offenders. [20162]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): We have already implemented the provisions in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 under which offenders convicted for the second time of a serious violent or sexual offence will receive an automatic life sentence; and those convicted for a third time of dealing in hard drugs will receive a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment.
The Government's Crime and Disorder Bill, which is currently before Parliament, provides for a statutory duty on the Court of Appeal to consider providing sentencing guidelines for all the main offences, which would ensure greater consistency in sentencing.

Mr. Loughton: I am grateful for that answer, but, having accepted the principle of extending prison stays for serious sexual and violent offenders as laid down by the previous Home Secretary, what do the Government have against the principle of minimum sentences for repeat or career burglars? Is taking tough action against that serious area of crime not a priority for the Government in the lifetime of this Parliament?

Ms Quin: As I made clear at the last Home Department questions, we are not against that principle. This would appear to be a severe case of repeat questioning—[Interruption.] That question has already been answered effectively by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other colleagues on several occasions. There is no difference between our view and that of the previous Government in this respect; but it was clear in the measures adopted by the previous Government that they


had neither the resources nor an immediate timetable for implementing the measures to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Angela Smith: A recent incident in my constituency involving a sex offender has brought home strongly the importance of ensuring public confidence in the sentencing of sex offenders. What plans does my hon. Friend have to ensure that, following release, serious sex offenders and violent offenders are properly supervised?

Ms Quin: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the Crime and Disorder Bill will contain provisions for extending supervision of sexual and violent offenders, which will respond to the point she has raised.

Drug Rehabilitation Establishments

Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will list the drug rehabilitation establishments which the Under Secretary with responsibility has visited since 1 May. [20163]

Mr. George Howarth: I have made visits to look at drug prevention programmes, rehabilitation programmes and various forms of treatment, both in the community and within the criminal justice system. In that context, I have visited Prison Service establishments with drug treatment programmes at Lindholme, Moorland, Lancaster, Channings Wood, Wetherby and Liverpool; probation initiatives in Plymouth, Bristol and Merseyside; several drug prevention initiative supported projects in Derby, West Yorkshire, Tower Hamlets and East Sussex; a voluntary initiative run by Cranstoun Drug Services in Wimbledon; and an arrest referral scheme in Oxford. As a result, I believe that there are many useful ways of reducing the demand for drugs and, at the same time, using the criminal justice system creatively to break the link between crime and drugs.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that response. Does he agree that there is a clear correlation between drug misuse and crime and that one way of tackling that is through the treatment of offenders? Does he also agree that the provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill and the appointment of an anti-drugs co-ordinator show how serious is the intent of the Government to tackle the issue?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right, in that there is a growing body of evidence of a strong link between drugs and crime. On Friday last week, I was talking to a couple of people who were receiving treatment while on bail as part of probation arrangements that offer an opportunity to deal with such people. We have made a start by appointing the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator, Keith Hellawell, and his deputy Mike Trace; and there are provisions, particularly for treatment and testing orders, in the Crime and Disorder Bill. We are determined to use every possible opportunity within the criminal justice system to tackle the growing problem in a creative and helpful way.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister send his condolences to the families of those who have lost loved ones in 1997, because of the menace of drugs? Will he send his thanks to those who painstakingly work with drug addicts

to rehabilitate them? Finally, will he condemn The Independent on Sunday for its irresponsible campaign to decriminalise cannabis in this country? It is a gateway drug, whose use might lead to people moving on to far harder drugs—although the message should be communicated that cannabis itself is a serious drug and extremely damaging to those who take it.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right. Obviously, I would join him in sending condolences to all the families that have lost relatives as a result of drug misuse—and I would also send condolences to the families that have been wrecked by the things that occur when people become involved in drugs. Of course, we join the hon. Gentleman in sending our best wishes to those who do the difficult job of working with drug misusers, voluntarily or through the criminal justice system.
The obsession of The Independent on Sunday with the subject of decriminalising cannabis is irresponsible. I am sad to say that it reflects a concern on the part of the chattering classes, which is often an apology for their own use rather than their having anything constructive to say about current drugs policy.

Corruption

Mr. Wyatt: If he will make a statement on the Government's plans to create a new, single offence of corruption. [20164]

Mr. Straw: On 9 June, I published a consultative paper on the reform of the law on corruption. A copy is available in the Library.
I shall carefully consider the responses to that paper, to the Law Commission paper on corruption offences and any further recommendations that the Committee on Standards in Public Life may make in relation to the criminal law. I expect to make a further statement on the reform of the law in this area early next year.

Mr. Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. When he is considering future changes, will he contemplate holding those data centrally, to facilitate changes in the forthcoming information Act?

Mr. Straw: I see no reason why much of the available information on corruption should not be held centrally. Sometimes information cannot be held centrally because of disproportionate cost, but we shall do our best to comply with my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Home Secretary agree that the offence of corruption of a Member of Parliament is serious, so the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1906 and 1916 should be amended to include the offence of attempted corruption of a Member of Parliament or any elected representative?

Mr. Straw: There are very strong grounds for proceeding as the hon. Gentleman proposes. I am currently considering responses to the consultative paper that I published earlier in the year; when I have done so, I shall make proposals to the House, and it will be a matter for the House to decide.

Mr. Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his proposals for a new offence will take into account the


type of corruption that was exposed in the High Court on Friday, when Dame Shirley Porter and others were found guilty of wilful misconduct, which cost £27 million? Will he also join me and the other Labour former Westminster councillors in the House in condemning the Conservative party, which has not said a word against Dame Shirley Porter, although one of those found guilty continues to serve as a Westminster councillor?
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and the Evening Standard editorial on Friday that Dame Shirley Porter should be stripped of her dameship? In view of the finding of the High Court that Dame Shirley Porter lied to the court, will he refer the matter to the Metropolitan police for investigation as to whether she committed perjury?

Mr. Straw: I not only congratulate but thank my hon. Friend and many other hon. Friends—some now in the House, some now outside—for the courageous 12-year campaign that they waged to expose that corruption. I also say to the Conservative party through you, Madam Speaker, that for years we were told by the Conservative party that it would condemn Lady Porter's behaviour if and when a court found against that behaviour. On Friday 19 December, a three-judge court, led by the distinguished Lord Justice Rose, found against Lady Porter, declared her to be a liar and confirmed the district auditor's conclusions that she had sought to spend public money gerrymandering a large part of Westminster. I now look forward to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) unequivocally condemning that behaviour at the Dispatch Box.

Police Officers

Mr. Allan: What was the total number of police officers in England and Wales in (a) April 1992, (b) March 1997 and (c) September 1997. [20165]

Mr. Michael: There were 127,760 police officers in. April 1992. By March 1997, the number had fallen to 127,158; by September, it had fallen again to 126,798. That is a fall of 962 over a five-year period.

Mr. Allan: I note that the Labour party was crafty enough not to give any specific figures for police numbers in its election manifesto, although it spent plenty of time attacking the Conservative Government for the falls that they had brought about.
Is not the Minister concerned about the fact that the Association of Police Authorities believes that his increased settlements for next year will be all but swallowed up in increased salary and pension costs for existing staff? That view is shared by my authority, South Yorkshire, which predicts staff cuts in the face of a 3.8 per cent. increase. Is not the Minister concerned about the fact that that means that next year's settlement will do nothing to reverse the trend of falling numbers?

Mr. Michael: First, ours was an honest response. At the time of the 1992 election, the Conservative party promised an increase of 1,000 in 12 months, but it did not increase the number of police officers by 1,000; it cut the number by 1,000 over five years. Secondly, we did not give figures relating to the number of police officers because, in the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994,

the Conservative party removed that responsibility from Government, and made it the responsibility of chief constables to decide how many police officers they should employ within the available resources.
In the coming year, police officers in England and Wales will receive an increase in spending power of £258 million. That takes the figure up to £7.15 billion, and represents a 3.7 per cent. increase on the current year. I think that it is a pretty good settlement in the circumstances.

Ms Beverley Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fall in the number of police officers contrasts starkly with the previous Government's promise to provide thousands of extra officers? Does he further agree that this year's settlement allows police authorities to take some steps towards redressing the imbalance? Is he aware that the absence of police officers on the streets in many parts of the country—including my constituency, where, on estates such as Partington, people are struggling to deal with the consequences of crime—leaves people feeling entirely unprotected?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. The party opposite—I mean the Conservative party: I should be as precise as the Liberal Democrats would wish me to be—promised to increase police numbers in 1992, failed to do so, and then increased its promise, with no intention of delivering, in the run-up to the election.
The increase in numbers gives chief constables and police authorities resources to increase the amount of work that they do, both directly and with partners such as local authorities, in attempting to cut crime. That is our aspiration—not to put up with the increased crime that we have seen in recent years, but to see a reduction in crime and an increase in the safety of people in their homes and on the streets year on year.

Mr. Greenway: Contrary to what the Minister has just said, chief constables throughout the country—from Wales to Cumbria and the south of England—are already saying, locally and to the press, that they will be forced to employ fewer officers over the next year as a result of the police financial settlement. That is in spite of an increase in the contribution from council tax payers. How many chief constables have suggested to the Minister that a cut in manpower is likely?
There is a common thread: the rural areas are worst affected. Is not this just another example of the Government's blatant disregard for rural interests?

Mr. Michael: That is a pretty desperate attempt by the hon. Gentleman. He asked me specifically how many police constables said that they were about to cut police numbers in the coming year. The answer is none.

Asylum Seekers

Mr. Green: What representations he has received on problems relating to Czech and Slovak asylum seekers in Kent. [20166]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): There have been numerous representations from various interested parties since the Czech and Slovak asylum seekers began to come in June this year. The major influx has now abated, and we are now concentrating our efforts on resolving the remaining cases. That is made slower and more difficult by the complex asylum system that we inherited from the Conservative Government.

Mr. Green: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he give the House his latest assessment of the cost of the influx of so-called asylum seekers? Has any progress been made in the fair allocation of that cost? By any standards, this is a national not a local problem, and for the cost to fall exclusively on my constituents and other council tax payers in Kent is manifestly unfair.

Mr. O'Brien: The cost is on-going, but local authorities receive from the Government £140 a week per adult asylum seeker. The council tax payers of Kent contribute, but they will also contribute as income tax payers should there be any further Government money. Last April, the Conservative Government cut the amount available from the Government to Kent and other authorities by some £20 a week per adult asylum seeker. This Government have been more generous to Kent. I have agreed to look at the further help that could be given to Kent by releasing some of its section 11 funding. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in praising many of the people of Kent for their tolerance and assistance in coping with what is, for a small town such as Dover, quite a large influx of people.

Mr. Prosser: Is my hon. Friend aware that the prompt action that the Government took in reapplying immigration law had a significant effect in reducing the number of asylum seekers coming through the port of Dover, particularly into my constituency? Is he further aware that that action considerably calmed the situation and has removed what could have been an inflammatory problem? Will he contrast the Government's prompt, sensible and rational action with some of the unhelpful suggestions by some Conservative Members—not the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), I hasten to add—that thousands of asylum seekers and refugees were queuing up to flood into the port of Dover?

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his responsible and statesmanlike approach to a difficult problem for the people of Dover—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may jeer, but they do not understand the seriousness of the problem in Dover, and a number of them have not been terribly helpful in seeking to resolve it. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), who represents his constituency so ably, has dealt with the problem calmly and sensibly, and has worked with the people of Dover and with Kent council to try to cope with the problem. We are grateful to him.
For example, from 2 November until the end of that month, five asylum seekers tried to enter this country from the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The Government's prompt action managed to abate that influx and dealt effectively with the problems that it was causing.

Identity Cards

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What proposals he has for a national identity card scheme. [20167]

Mr. George Howarth: We are considering the options, but have no proposals yet to introduce a national identity scheme for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I ask a simple question: what does the Minister think are the benefits of a national identity scheme?

Mr. Howarth: There is a considerable lobby in favour of a national identity scheme. For example, the police believe that it would assist them in the pursuit of criminals; some believe that it would assist security in the financial sector; and others believe that it would help the retail industry to identify people. Equally, less positive arguments would have to be taken into account before a final decision was made.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The Minister will know that a photo ID card is coming through for driving licences. All the requirements for a driving licence, which virtually all of us carry, are the same as for an ID card, as long as it has a photograph or some other form of positive identification. Will he please give urgent consideration to introducing an ID card?

Mr. Howarth: It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that on 18 December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions made an announcement on photo-identity driving licences. They have no other use, nor is any other purpose intended. If, for example, traders chose to use them as proof of identity or to establish that someone was over the age of 17, that would be a useful extension, but it would be voluntary; it would not be the Government's intention.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a lobby equally opposed to the introduction of a national identity card scheme, and that those of us who are opposed will have to be persuaded that there is a genuine need for ID cards in a democracy in peacetime? One associates a national identity card scheme more with totalitarian societies. I hope that my hon. Friend will see to it that the Government do not introduce such a card scheme. It is not necessary and would be deeply resented by many people.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend expresses a point of view that is held by many people, and for which there are precedents, but equally strong and perhaps more important views might have to be taken into account. My hon. Friend's views must be balanced against persuasive arguments in the opposite direction.

Police Settlement

Mr. Hawkins: What representations he has received on the level of the police settlement for 1998. [20168]

Mr. Straw: Four.

Mr. Hawkins: I thank the Home Secretary for his answer. Does he recognise, despite the carping comments


of the Minister of State, that the facts are that in 1996 there were about 16,000 more police officers than in 1979, and about 18,400 more civilians helping them? The Conservative party had a proud record of increasing policing where police were needed. In addition to assisting my area, will the Home Secretary ensure that areas such as South Yorkshire have enough police officers in future to investigate the on-going corruption in Labour local government—for example, in Doncaster?

Mr. Straw: The fact that this time last year 43 representations were made against the police settlement, whereas this year there were only four, suggests that there is widespread confidence in the settlement, and widespread recognition that it was fair to the police and the communities that they serve, especially against the background of an extremely difficult public spending settlement, for which the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends were principally responsible.

Crime (Sussex)

Mr. Baker: If he will meet the chief constable of the Sussex police force to discuss levels of crime. [20169]

Mr. Michael: I am always willing to discuss such matters with chief officers, and I do so regularly. I have met the chief constable of Sussex on a number of occasions, both in his role as chief constable and as a representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers. I have met him in the police force area—I recently visited Brighton police station—and I also met him in November at the Home Office.

Mr. Baker: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency there is an epidemic of vandalism? Although there is a drop in the number of other, more serious crimes, all four major towns—Seaford, Polegate, Newhaven and Lewes—are affected by vandalism, which is causing an undue fear of crime among the population at large. What steps will the Minister take to deal with the epidemic of vandalism, as a result of which the windows of one chemist shop in Seaford were smashed seven times in a number of weeks? I saw the chemist on Saturday. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues about the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service, which seems to be reluctant to prosecute anyone whom the police charge with vandalism offences?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman refers to a number of problems in relation to which we are introducing reforms, specifically in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service. Through the Crime and Disorder Bill, we shall introduce various sentences and the partnership approach, which is intended to address the hon. Gentleman's point that vandalism can build up to the more serious and violent crimes that are the scourge of modern society. Violent crime has increased by 13 per cent. in the Sussex area, and I would not be surprised if the problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers were related to that increase in more serious crimes.

Racial Violence

Mrs. Mahon: What recent representations he has received on tackling incidents of racial violence. [20171]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have received 118 responses to the Home Office consultation document on racial violence and harassment. They indicated wide-ranging support for the Government's proposals in the Crime and Disorder Bill to introduce new offences of racially aggravated violence and harassment.

Mrs. Mahon: I assure my hon. Friend that almost everyone welcomes the new proposals. However, will he inform the House when the Stephen Lawrence inquiry will begin? He will be aware that many people—especially those who want to see an end to violence and murder—will follow that inquiry closely.

Mr. O'Brien: The public hearings for the Lawrence inquiry are likely to begin in February. Like my hon. Friend, we are very concerned about the growth in racist crime and violence of which one of the worst manifestations was the murder of Stephen Lawrence. That is why one of the Government's first acts in the Home Office was to arrange a judicial inquiry into that matter. We also hope to secure cross-party support for the measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill to tackle racist crime.
The lives of far too many people are damaged and destroyed by racial harassment and violence, and the Government are determined to crack down on mindless bigotry and thuggery. Some racist criminals may have to learn their lessons behind bars.

Drugs (Prisons)

Mr. Spring: What steps he is taking to tackle drugs misuse in prisons; and if he will make a statement. [20174]

Ms Quin: The Government are committed to reducing drugs misuse in prisons. We intend to reduce the supply of drugs in prisons and to provide help to prisoners who misuse, have misused or are at risk of misusing drugs. To help achieve that, I have asked the Prison Service to examine its drug strategy to determine how best to ensure an appropriate balance between security and control measures on the one hand, and treatment and prevention measures on the other. I expect to see the recommendations in April.

Mr. Spring: Given the alarming increase in drugs usage in prisons, will the hon. Lady assure the House that the inquiry will give proper recognition to the entry of drugs into prisons? Many of my constituents who live near prisons and others are concerned about the ease of access to life-threatening and highly addictive drugs in the prison system.

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman is right: that is a problem, and we have modified search procedures and other measures to take account of it. At the same time, we must also make as effective as possible the treatment and prevention measures to which I referred.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that many prisoners with drug problems are put on methadone courses, which are causing difficulties? Will he commission an inquiry into the use of methadone in order to determine whether that is the right method for weaning people off drugs?

Ms Quin: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in raising issues related to drugs misuse, which I know is a particular problem in his constituency. Methadone can play a stabilising role, but we need to look carefully at its effects as well as all other aspects, to ensure that we have a balanced treatment programme.

Mr. Malins: If the Minister is determined to stamp out drugs in our prisons, why does not she insist that those who work in prisons—including all prison staff—are subject to the same search procedures as visitors upon entering prisons?

Ms Quin: There is no evidence that that is a particular problem. We must direct our attention to those who work in or visit prisons, such as members of the legal profession and probation officers. We must ensure that search levels are appropriate for those who come into prisons.

Drugs and Crime

Mr. Touhig: What plans he has to tackle the link between drugs and crime. [20175]

Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a specific measure in the Crime and Disorder Bill, which is currently in another place, for a treatment and testing order. That will require prisoners, at the will of the court, to undergo treatment and regular testing, and to be kept under review. It is an issue that we take seriously. We are concerned also that the lessons of the drug prevention initiative on interventions in the criminal justice system should be taken forward.

Mr. Touhig: I welcome my hon. Friend's firm response to the question of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). Will he confirm that the Government will firmly oppose the decriminalisation of any controlled substance?

Mr. Howarth: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. If the House or the Government were to send out the message that we were prepared to consider either legalising or decriminalising any currently banned substances, that would be a green light to all the young people and others who do not take drugs to do so. We are certainly not prepared to do that.

Madam Speaker: We were due to have a statement at this time, to be made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The statement is ready, but the Opposition spokesman has not yet seen it as there has been a computer breakdown. I shall therefore take a sensible approach and not take the statement now—we shall move on to the Second Reading of the School Standards and Framework Bill. As the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was not aware of this change, he is being brought to the House. I think that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has something to say.
I intend to suspend the sitting for 15 minutes until the Secretary of State arrives at the House. I shall then hear his opening statement, to give the Opposition time to read the statement that will be made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): First, Madam Speaker, I accept your ruling. Secondly, I apologise to the House. It could not have been foreseen, however, that at 3 o'clock all the computers in my office would go down. Those who put their faith in technology sometimes have a price to pay, and that was the price.
I fully understand that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has not had time to consider a very important statement, and I am content that we should proceed as you recommend, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Michael Jack: Thank you, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Opposition, for the suspension that you propose. As we have been told that the Minister's statement was long in coming, does not what has happened show some incompetence by Ministry? It would have been helpful if we could have been provided with a draft of the statement earlier.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Madam Speaker: No, there can be no points of order. I am seeking to be helpful to the House, including the Opposition. I shall suspend the sitting, and we shall resume at 3.45 pm. The statement will be heard after the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has introduced the School Standards and Framework Bill on Second Reading.

Sitting suspended.

Orders of the Day — School Standards and Framework Bill

On resuming—

Madam Speaker: I have an agreement from the two Front Benchers that they will complete their introduction of the Second Reading by five o'clock, so that the statement may take place at precisely that time. It will be put on the Annunciator for everyone in the House to see.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
If anyone is wondering where the beef is, it is in the Bill. [Laughter.] The Bill is the most substantial piece of legislation on education ever brought forward by a Labour Government, and I am very proud indeed to be the Secretary of State who introduces it. Given that it is Christmas week, I wish to take the opportunity to wish you, Madam Speaker, and the House, a happy and contented Christmas, free of leaks and telephone calls from the media, and full of Christmas cheer.
Given the range of goodies in the Bill, it is difficult to know where to start. The Bill is about raising standards; it seeks consensus; it offers a fresh start; it provides a new fervour for lifting horizons in the education system; and it is all about ensuring that teachers have the wherewithal and the power to do their job. Those who carry responsibility—whether as governors, as parents, as teachers, as members of education authorities or as the Secretary of State—need the powers to match rights and duties together.
The Bill is the most comprehensive and widespread measure that has been introduced on standards. It deals not with minutiae, but with the thrust of how we change the relationships in education to emphasise opportunity and equality for all our children. The Bill will match the responsibilities that each and every one of us carries for ourselves with the support necessary and the framework required to make that into a reality. The fulfilment of our promises and pledges commences in the Bill. It builds on the legislation that was given Royal Assent on 31 July to reduce class sizes for all five, six and seven-year-olds to no more than 30.
We will ensure that we begin the process of providing the kind of education for the many that has previously been available only to the few. We will put behind us the divisions and diversions, and the misdirection of time and energy that has been expended on structures rather than standards. The Bill will ensure that we can unite as a House and a nation behind the task of giving every child in our country the chance to succeed, and to contribute for themselves and their families to the prosperity and success of our nation.

Mr. Barry Jones: In my constituency, great interest is taken in the Bill. Does my right hon. Friend think that the social exclusion unit will assist him in attaining the objectives outlined in the Bill?

Mr. Blunkett: The work of the social exclusion unit in drawing together a range of Departments, agencies and organisations into a coherent social policy approach will make a substantial contribution to success. It will build on the measures in the Bill which complement and extend the measures in the Education (Schools) Act 1997, passed by the previous Parliament, which ensure that we can tackle head-on the prevention of exclusion and truancy. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) has been working with education authorities, and has announced £22 million of resources to stimulate and support projects to avoid exclusion.

Mr. Cynog Dais: Before the Secretary of State says any more about uniting the nation, will he establish that the Bill applies to two nations, England and Wales, but not to Scotland? Is it not terribly important that those two nations, if they so wish, can develop distinctive policies, appropriate to their differing circumstances?

Mr. Blunkett: I can confirm that the Bill applies to England and to Wales, and that the clauses which apply to Wales will enable Wales to develop under the new Assembly its own perspective and ethos for education. This will build on the principles in the Bill, and on the principle of raising standards across the United Kingdom.
Education is our top priority, and our success will depend on it. Social cohesion, economic renewal and personal well-being all come from the opportunity to develop the talents of every child and the ability to build on their potential.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the Conservative-controlled Cambridgeshire county council which decided last week not to allocate the extra money that the Government have provided for education to the education service? Does he agree that that is a dreadful waste of an opportunity of which the county council is simply not taking advantage?

Mr. Blunkett: As my hon. Friend knows, I have written to every education authority and to the leaders of councils to appeal to them to ensure that the resources announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 2 July reach the education system. My right hon. Friend announced that an extra £1 billion would be available for revenue for next year—an average increase of 5.7 per cent. We are asking every council to ensure that the resources are made available, and we will monitor their actions. We recognise that, after 18 years of retrenchment and cuts, it is difficult for councils to


balance competing policy pressures. We are mindful of that when asking them to ensure that education is, and will remain, a top priority for all.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Secretary of State has commented on Cambridgeshire. Will he also comment on the remarks of the leader of Derbyshire county council, who said:
We would like nothing more than to pass the cash increase to our schools but it is unrealistic when we are facing a £14 million shortfall in our budget"?

Mr. Blunkett: Of course, that £14 million shortfall arises directly from the way in which Derbyshire was treated under the Conservatives. The Conservatives did not match the standard spending assessment with revenue, as we are doing. The council was treated badly by the Conservatives' refusal to reassess the SSA and the area cost adjustment; that is currently taking place as part of the wider review for 1999. Councils were also treated badly by the Conservatives as they were offered only £200 million nationally for the coming year for education, when we are offering more than £1 billion in extra resources.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The Secretary of State, frankly, has missed the point of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). The Government have announced their proposals for local government finance for next year—this Government, who have now been in office for eight months. Is the Secretary of State saying that the SSA figures fixed by the Government for next year are wrong? Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to stand behind the statement made by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions?

Mr. Blunkett: I said nothing of the sort. I said that the review of the allocation of standard spending assessment and area cost adjustment would take shape for 1999, and that, of course, after eight months, county and metropolitan districts and London borough councils are having to reflect on how they pick up the pieces after 18 years. In that respect, Derbyshire is no different from other authorities, except it was in a difficult position because of its relative position in the county council funding league.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Nothing is as straight as it seems when we hear Tories complaining about cuts in local government finance. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for many years, when the Tory Government were in and we had Labour-controlled local government in Matlock, Derbyshire, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and his hon. Friends, the former Members for Amber Valley, Erewash and Derbyshire, South, used to come to the Chamber not to ask for more money for Derbyshire—their local authority—but to demand that the Tory Secretary of State reduce the amount of money going to their constituents?

I have seen hypocrisy and shades of hypocrisy, but I have never heard anything like what has been uttered here today.

Mr. Blunkett: I could not put it better myself.

Mr. Skinner: You're not supposed to.

Mr. Blunkett: Since it is Christmas, I acknowledge fully that I cannot.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I will do so in a moment, but I want to make some progress. Part I of the Bill is a new step forward, which will create a new relationship of professionalism for teachers, building on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill, which is before the House of Lords and which will create: a general teaching council; new induction arrangements for qualified teachers; new inspection arrangements for teaching and for in-service training; a new job description for education authorities; new rights and responsibilities for parents through home-school agreements; a key role for head teachers with the new head teacher qualification; and a new way forward, building on the relationship of families of schools, which will unite primary and secondary schools, and school with school, instead of the previous pretence that we had a pseudo-market in which competition replaced co-operation, and schools were seen to be deliberately attacking their neighbours.
The lower class sizes I mentioned are part of the process, and they are reinforced and reaffirmed in this Bill. The education action zones laid out in clauses 10 to 13 have received wide acclaim. They will enable us to ensure that we can target resources and innovation where they are most needed, in both rural and urban areas, and that we can use the new-found flexibility to find out what works best and to spread it around the rest of the country as time and resources allow.
Clauses 6 and 7 describe the education development plans that education authorities will have to set out, which are linked to the present new early years development programmes. I pay tribute to those authorities that are doing a excellent job and have enabled us to replace the nursery vouchers scheme so smoothly and quickly.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, who has been generous to colleagues in giving way. Surely, all those improvements—as he sees them—need to be financed. What will he tell Dorset county council, which, for every extra £1 that his Department wants it to spend on education, is having to take £1.40 off the care of old people in my constituency? In fact, there has been a real-terms decrease of 2.5 per cent. in the Dorset county council budget, which is probably the lowest budget in the country, anyway.

Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman's concern is commendable, but his facts are incorrect. The resources that have been allocated for education match, pound for pound, with revenue support, the lift in standard spending assessment. He might not be aware of it, but this is the first time since capping was introduced in the mid-1980s


that a Government have matched for a specific service the revenue support with the SSA uplift; that is why we have been able to ask education authorities throughout the country to allocate those resources by taking the difficult decisions that are required to balance the needs of social services and other essential services within their overall budgets.
The role of local education authorities will be inspected, and the new measures in the Bill allow us to intervene directly when we believe that an education authority is failing children and the education service. Instead of hand wringing, which was a familiar sight in the past, we will have the power to take directly whatever steps are necessary to ensure that education authorities deliver our pledges. Clause 8 confers the power to take over specific functions within the education authority, and allows them to be undertaken either by another LEA or by a specific organisation or private concern specified by the Department and myself.

Mr. John Hayes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that that represents a significant shift in power from local education authorities to the Department, and that the Bill goes further in that respect than any of its predecessors?

Mr. Blunkett: The Conservative Government set up the Funding Agency for Schools, and ran schools directly from the Department; they established what was initially a very rigid national curriculum, which had to be duly watered down and loosened up after the first Dearing inquiry; and they imposed on the education service the most draconian restrictions that we have ever known. The hon. Gentleman has the cheek of the devil to accuse us.
The powers that we are taking are to allow us to match the rhetoric of action with the reality of action. We are able to do what other Governments have pretended that they would like to do, as shown by the previous Secretary of State's intervention in Calderdale and her hand wringing in Nottinghamshire. We have the resources and the power to do something. Those powers balance the correct autonomy at local level with the responsibility to carry out our manifesto pledge to ensure that every child, in whatever local education authority, has the same opportunities.
Intervention in LEAs, as with intervention in schools, will be in inverse proportion to success. If they are working well and doing the job, there will be no interference or direct intervention from the Department; if they are not, we will not simply sit on the sidelines wishing that we could do something about it: we will have the power to act.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I pay tribute to both the Secretary of State and the Minister for School Standards, who has come to York twice to meet me and the staff and management of the Funding Agency for Schools to discuss the implications of the Bill for the Agency.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the staff and managers at the Funding Agency for Schools have executive skills—skills in administering education

services—that are not available elsewhere in the Department, which is concerned with policy making, not executive functions? Those skills include, for example, capital planning and the administration of the Bill's education action zones and development plans, which ought to be preserved. Will the Department consider how to use those skills in the future, as well as seeking a future use for its offices at Albion wharf in York?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman and the House know that interventions should be sharp and to the point. More than 40 hon. Members want to speak in the debate. Interventions must be interventions, or hon. Members may not be called when they seek to take part in the debate proper.

Mr. Blunkett: I am delighted that 40 hon. Members wish to speak. I thank them for not going for a drink tonight. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It may have been too long, but it was to the point in the issues that he raised on behalf of his constituents.
I confirm that we are mindful of the insecurity and fear among staff at the Funding Agency for Schools and of the need to use their talents, experience and skills to the full in implementing our policies, helping us develop plans for local education and schools, establishing targets, ensuring that we can implement our new deal for school, and investing capital effectively. All those aims will be aided by the expertise that people have gained over the years. I shall ensure that I keep my hon. Friend regularly in touch with what we do in that direction.
Part II deals with issues that relate to the Funding Agency for Schools and to the new framework, which will replace the friction, division and unfairness of the past by-drawing together schools of all shapes and sizes into the three new categories in the Bill: community, voluntary and foundation. We listened carefully to the representations made in the consultation. There were 8,500 responses, the greatest number of people and organisations in recent history to respond to a consultative White Paper, including 3,500 from individual parents. We are delighted that people were able and willing to make those representations.
We listened to individuals and organisations, and to the Churches, who told us that they wanted voluntary schools to stay voluntary rather than becoming foundation schools, so as to retain their unique ethos. We were happy to agree. We guaranteed the Churches that their specific role and the ethos of denominational Churches will not be affected. We agreed to make it clear in the Bill that the Secretary of State, rather than the new adjudicator, will be responsible for that area.
I know that some organisations wanted only two categories of school. It has been by building consensus that we have been able to gain support for the new framework to stop the dog fighting, the conflict and the division. It is on that basis that we are moving forward with the new categories, all of which are based entirely on fair funding, on accountability, on inclusiveness of decision-making, and on being part of school planning.
That is also how we are moving forward on the admissions policies through which all schools will play their part in creating a new fairness. Let me spell out, as do clauses 43 to 51, that, from now on, no school will


receive additional funding because of its status; such funding will be given only to meet the needs of the children that schools educate.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: While I welcome the Secretary of State's decision on denominational schools, and recognise that he listened carefully to the consultation on them, will he explain why he ignored the responses to the consultation on grant-maintained schools? Is this not a case of "if it isn't broke, don't try to fix it"? Why does he insist on bringing back local authority governors—political placemen of his party—to interfere with the great success of grant-maintained schools?

Mr. Blunkett: In building consensus, we tried to get over such language, which reflects the past. I am delighted that Pauline Latham and George Phipson, the joint chairs of the Grant-Maintained Joint Monitoring Group, which represents 1,200 grant-maintained schools, wrote to me saying:
We are writing to express our support for the inclusion of a Foundation Category within the School Standards and Framework Bill. It is our belief that the overwhelming majority of current Grant Maintained schools will opt for this category after the Bill has been enacted next year.
It continues:
GMJMG warmly welcomes the priority which the Government has attached to education. We strongly support the view that education standards should take precedence over school structures.
One cannot get a clearer position than that. I commend the grant-maintained sector for it, because it is looking forward to a new century, not backwards to a divisionist past.
That is the difference between this Government and the previous one. We do not seek conflict; we seek to heal the wounds. We seek to put together a consensus for improvement and change, according to which we can ensure that people can work together rather than against each other; where schools and children are not threatened; and where teachers doing their job are not threatened. Through the extension of local management of schools, we will also seek to ensure that all schools have the opportunity to develop their standards and to determine, through their own autonomy, how they develop. They should be able to use innovation and enterprise to deliver to their children the best possible standards of education.
One of the most difficult things that I will have to do in my time as Secretary of State for Education and Employment is to reunite schools over divided admissions policies. It will be my task and that of my Ministers to draw up new circulars. As we said in our manifesto, we will build on circular 6/93, which was published by the previous Government, to ensure that all children have a chance and are treated fairly in terms of admission to schools.
Part III of the Bill allows me to correct the free-for-all that disadvantaged children, and continues to do so in key areas of the country, whether Watford or Bromley. When considering the shambles of the admissions policy in such areas, I am reminded of the words of the former right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, Nick Ridley, when he was Secretary of State for Transport. He famously said that he thought that the answer to traffic jams was to do away with traffic lights, on the

grounds that, eventually, people would leave their cars at home because they would not be able to get past the end of their street.
If one followed the logic of previous Government's admissions policy to its rightful conclusion, the result would be exactly the same jams and snarl-ups as parents fought one another, regardless of the consequences for other children.

Mr. Phil Willis: I am interested in the Secretary of State's comments about including all children in new admission arrangements. Can he therefore explain why he has not sought fit to make it a requirement on all local education authorities to include children with special educational needs? That would make our society, through our maintained schools, a wholly inclusive one.

Mr. Blunkett: The Green Paper we published recently—which the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley dealt with at length in the House a couple of Fridays ago—seeks to include special support where it is necessary and appropriate and will ensure that we design the system to meet the needs of the child rather than the other way round.
I am happy to receive representations about the development of admissions policies that ensure that special needs children are taken into account. Let me go further—I am mindful to hear from people how they believe we can best ensure that over-subscribed schools are able to take children with special needs as well as those who previously had difficulties, and encourage them and help them flourish. That is not always the case, given that the admissions procedures have not always allowed over-subscribed schools to take on that challenge. Instead, those arrangements have tended to divert such children to under-subscribed schools, where places exist in abundance. I look forward to people contributing to that important debate.
Back in June 1995, we spelled out our position on grammar schools. I am able to confirm that the Bill and the criteria I will lay down as part of our admissions policy will remove partial selection where it currently exists. That causes havoc in terms of the admission of local children, and denies fairness to parents because of the lack of choices and opportunities open to them.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, as he has been generous with his time. As he says that people are fighting over places, could he explain why, given that Bromley gives places to nearly 3,500 secondary pupils and nearly 1,500 primary school pupils from outside the borough, he has not reversed the Greenwich ruling?

Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Lady raised that question with me in a slightly different form during questions on education and employment—it seems a long time ago, but was only about 10 days ago. I shall give her the answer: we are not against the exercise of a parental preference; we are against situations in which, for no other reason than the partial selection system and because parents are exercising their preference from a distance, local parents living in close proximity to a school in, for example, Bromley, find it impossible to get their children into it.
I have made it clear several times that we are not prepared to overturn the Greenwich judgment. It is specifically, although not exclusively, a London problem, and we want London boroughs to co-operate to begin to ensure that we can make sense out of what is currently a shambles.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The Secretary of State has been more than helpful in trying to resolve the problems that we have in Southend-on-Sea, where four people's grammar schools take 25 per cent. of the children, and where, despite high unemployment and many social problems, we have higher educational achievements overall than any other part of Essex.
However, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that, as long as local primary school parents are in favour of the continuation of those four grammar schools, they will be permitted to continue? As he considers that, will he bear in mind the appalling situation in Glasgow, where I used to live, where they had the most dreadful education results ever recorded, partly because all the selective schools there were abolished?

Mr. Blunkett: The fact of whether there is selection or non-selection does not affect the standard of education, which depends on the teaching in the classroom, the holistic work of the school, the development of links with the community, the support of parents, and the work which, I accept, needs to be done with parents whose interest in, and commitment to, education is so variable.
I can confirm to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that, in the case of individual grammar schools, parents of children at the appropriate feeder and primary schools will make the decision. Only where 20 per cent. of the parents in those individual grammar schools wish to trigger a ballot will a ballot take place.
I want to make it clear this afternoon that a disparate admissions policy makes it more, rather than less, difficult for the teachers to do their job in balancing able and less able children with different aptitudes. That is why we are establishing an adjudicator, who will complement the criteria on admissions and help to ensure that a smooth change is achieved, and that, where there is disagreement at local level, there will be a right of appeal on policy matters.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will know that democratic socialists, almost by definition, are opposed to grammar schools, and that many of us would vote to close them tomorrow because we believe that they completely undermine education in our constituencies, particularly where they exist near our constituencies. Does my right hon. Friend look forward to some time in the future when, under a Labour Government, those infernal institutions will have disappeared for ever, and we will be able to look forward to a secondary system in this country that feeds equality to all?

Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for that very enjoyable question. Perhaps the best way I can answer it is to quote

directly from our document "Diversity and Excellence", which I published on the day that the previous Prime Minister resigned to stand against himself in June 1995—two and a half years ago:
Our opposition to academic selection at 11 has always been clear, but while we have never supported grammar schools in their exclusion of children by examination, change can only come through local agreement. Such change in the character of a school would only follow a clear demonstration of support from the parents affected by such decisions.
That principle is embodied in the Bill and in the criteria that I shall lay down; it is in our manifesto, and I shall carry it out to the letter.

Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, who has been extremely generous in giving way. In view of the shifting sand that is the Government's policy on selection, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to explain to the House his understanding of the difference in meaning between the words ability and aptitude?

Mr. Blunkett: It is the same meaning that was built into the previous Government's legislation and the criteria laid out in DfEE circular 6/93. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the previous Secretary of State, who will no doubt enlighten him. The adjudicator that I shall establish will ensure that aptitude is not used as a cover for selection. That is why we are establishing the adjudication system.
The whole thrust of what we are doing is to improve standards, and I am pleased to announce that we are notifying education authorities today of the next tranche of resources relating to our standards fund. The additional £59 million will include £49 million to establish in-service training for teachers and new literacy co-ordinators, and to purchase books. There will be an extra £4 million for the excellent work that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is doing on family literacy, which, as I said, is so crucial to our success in achieving progress.
We are allocating £3 million to extend the premier league initiative for after-school and homework centres, so that division one clubs in England can also participate. I look forward to the possibility in the near future of rugby league and rugby union clubs participating, although some good rugby league clubs, including Sheffield Eagles, are already doing an excellent job of work in helping children out of school hours. Finally, £3.3 million will be used to help reading recovery for pupils transferring from primary to secondary school; we all remember that the previous Government did away altogether with national funding for the reading recovery scheme.
This afternoon, we have an opportunity to spell out the Government's unequivocal commitment to the task of healing our education system, fostering innovation and ensuring that people have the power to act sensibly in making those aims come alive in their own schools and communities. The Bill will ensure that 14 and 15-year-olds can legally take part in work experience, and so enable them to develop their contact with the world of work while remaining within school and benefiting from GCSE, GNVQ1 and the experiments that are taking place in further education.
The Bill takes an holistic approach. We are reinstating nutritional standards in school meals 17 years after the Tory Government withdrew them. We are overcoming silly anomalies so that schools can provide free school milk, and provide it at any time of the day, rather than being subject to the nonsense that exists under current law. We are ensuring that capability procedures for teachers are tough but fair. We are making it possible to co-ordinate what is happening between schools and colleges and between school and school. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and his colleagues will also be able to do so.
The Bill sets behind us two decades of muddle and dissension, and builds on the progress that we have made in the past eight months in reinvigorating, re-motivating and bringing new morale to the education service. I offer this Christmas as a new beginning for the education service, and I look forward to everyone of good will working with us to implement it on behalf of our children.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Before I call the next speaker, I advise the House that Madam Speaker has decided that the 10-minutes rule will apply to all Back-Bench speeches this evening.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I start by joining the Secretary of State in wishing you, as occupant of the Chair, and the whole House a happy Christmas. That is something which does not divide those on the Front Benches in this debate.
However, my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against Second Reading, because the Bill does not deliver the things that the Secretary of State claimed for it and because—even worse—in important respects it actively undermines the delivery of higher school standards and better prospects for British schoolchildren.
In the White Paper "Excellence in Schools", published in July 1997, the Secretary of State began to set out his policies for schools. The White Paper set out some policy principles, which we should compare with the detail of the Bill that the House is asked to consider today.
In the White Paper the Secretary of State said that he regarded standards as more important than structure. He repeated that proposition today, but the Bill is not, as he sought to argue, focused on the delivery of standards. The Bill is the centrepiece of another major restructuring of the educational framework. That is why it is called the School Standards and Framework Bill. Fifty-five of the 124 clauses of the Bill marshalled together in part II of the Bill set out, as the title of the part makes clear, a
new framework for maintained schools".
It is not true to say that the Bill does not deal with school structure.
The fifth principle set out in the White Paper was:
There will be zero tolerance of underperformance
and the sixth principle was:
Government will work in partnership"—

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): The right hon. Gentleman skipped over that one a bit quickly.

Mr. Dorrell: I am coming back to it. I am putting the two together in the interests of brevity:
zero tolerance of underperformance" and
Government will work in partnership with all those committed to raising standards.
Yet the Bill abolishes grant-maintained schools. It establishes a machinery for abolishing grammar schools. How does that square with the principle that the Government will work with those who are committed to raising standards in British schools? This is not "zero tolerance of underperformance"; it is zero tolerance of high performance.
Another principle set out in the White Paper is that
Intervention will be in inverse proportion to success"—
yet the Bill establishes, by means of the education development planning process and a myriad of other planning processes, a centralised planning structure giving unprecedented powers to the holder of the Secretary of State's office, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) pointed out. This is not a Bill that delivers intervention in inverse proportion to success, but a Bill that provides the Secretary of State with unprecedented powers to intervene across the board in the British school system.
Most important, the White Paper sought to argue that this gave effect to the Government's priority area. When asked what is the Government's priority, the Prime Minister is wont say, "Education, education, education," yet it is now obvious that that claim has no clothes.
During the general election campaign, the Prime Minister repeatedly said that he sought to deliver the increased emphasis on education that he wanted his Government to provide, by reducing expenditure elsewhere on welfare. On the launch of the Labour party manifesto on 3 April, the Prime Minister said:
Education will be our number one priority; and we will increase the share of national income spent on education as we decrease it on the bills of economic and social failure".
That is what the Prime Minister said on 3 April, and he repeated it time and again during the election campaign.
But now we know the truth. This was a strategy with no detail attached to it—certainly no detail to which the present Secretary of State for Education and Employment was signed up. We have seen how signed up to these principles he feels, in the memorandum that was leaked to yesterday's edition of The Sunday Telegraph. In that memorandum, the Secretary of State's argument is: "Of course I understand the need for reform of the welfare system; it is just that I agree with almost none of the principles that the Treasury and the Department of Social Security are discussing."
I was a Treasury Minister in the last Government at one point, and any Treasury Minister is familiar with the Secretary of State's argument. Since the dawn of time, colleagues throughout Whitehall have written to Treasury Ministers, "We agree wholeheartedly with the general principle that you are trying to pursue, but we disagree with the specific proposition that is being considered." [Interruption.]
The Secretary of State asks what this has to do with the Bill. Every schoolmaster and schoolmistress—every teacher working in the system—would say that, if we are to improve standards in British schools, the Secretary of State's key priority must be to deliver extra resources.
The key to success in the delivery of that objective, according to the Prime Minister, is to release resources elsewhere in the system, because that is the only way in which he sees extra money going into British schools. We know, however, that the Secretary of State is now resisting the very process that the Prime Minister said was the key to delivering extra resources.
The Secretary of State knows very well that the argument set out in yesterday's edition of The Sunday Telegraph is central to the delivery of his responsibilities. He asks, "What has this to do with the Bill?", but he knows the answer very well. He knows that the answer is that, unless the Government can deliver the welfare reform that he opposes in particular, he will not have the resources to deliver on his rhetoric about school standards.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my right hon. Friend was somewhat disappointed by the Secretary of State's reply to my intervention. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to know that, for every pound in the increase in Dorset's standard spending assessment, £1.40 was taken away from disabled people and the social services budget. Surely he realises that the increase is a con trick of smoke and mirrors. There are no extra resources; resources are being taken away from other local government services.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Virtually all the increase in resources provided in the Government's plans for local authorities as a whole have been claimed as an increase in the education SSA, but that will be a realistic interpretation of the facts only if every other local government service—social services being far the most important—delivers a totally unrealistic budget for next year as compared with this year.

Mr. David Watts: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that increased resources are the only way to improve education, why did he spend the last 18 years in government cutting education spending in my authority?

Mr. Dorrell: During those 18 years, we saw increases year by year in the resources available to British schools. Furthermore, we never claimed—and I have not claimed today—that it is only about resources. It is also about structure. That is why I shall go on to argue that the changes in structure that form the centrepiece of the Bill are changes in the wrong direction.
It would not, however, be right to claim that every aspect of the Bill is unwelcome. I welcome some aspects—for instance, the priority that the Government give education. That is not new, of course; it is a commonplace of prime ministerial speeches. It has been so since the days of Lord Callaghan, Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), and the present incumbent has continued the tradition. It is a cliché, but none the less a welcome cliché, that education is a high priority to any Government. I agree with the Government about that.
I also welcome the fact that the Government are committed to continuing the testing regime and the publication of those tests, which we introduced in the

teeth of opposition from the Labour party. The Secretary of State now recognises that it is an important element of keeping the system open and accountable to parents and the wider community. I very much welcome the fact that the Government are committed to those principles.
I also welcome the elements in the Bill that deal with education action zones. Anyone looking at the publicity which the Secretary of State secured when the Bill was published could be forgiven for thinking that the Bill was almost exclusively about education action zones. The four clauses devoted to that subject are broadly welcome as they represent an important element in improving education in difficult parts of the country.
However, I hope that the Minister will clarify one aspect of those four clauses when he winds up. Clause 13 allows an education action zone to opt out of the national arrangements for school teachers' pay and conditions. This is exactly the same Bill which withdraws those rights from grant-maintained schools that have hitherto had the right.
I should be glad to know why the Government are providing to schools within education action zones exactly the same right that they are removing from today's grant-maintained schools. It was right that grant-maintained schools had such an option, and I certainly do not oppose it in the context of grant-maintained schools. I simply oppose its withdrawal from schools which currently have the right to opt out of those conditions.

Mr. Blunkett: How many?

Mr. Dorrell: The Minister asks how many. That question is not relevant. He proposes to provide that opportunity for schools in education action zones, presumably because he is persuaded by the argument of allowing individual schools greater flexibility around teachers' pay and conditions. I agree with him about that, but do not understand why he wants to focus it on a few schools and not, to use the Government's rhetoric, on "schools for the many".
I wish to dwell on one aspect of the Bill, because I find it rather better than I had expected. I refer to clauses 90 to 94 on selection. The Secretary of State has always had interesting things to say about selection, although not all of them are totally compatible with each other. Lord Hattersley attributed to the right hon. Gentleman the phrase, "Read my lips: no selection by examination or interview." I should be interested to know whether the Secretary of State wishes to deny it—he has never sought to do so. That was alleged to be his policy.
A couple of years ago, at the Labour party conference, the Prime Minister said:
No return to selection, academic or social.
I presume that that was before he chose the school to which his children now go. At the beginning of this year, the Secretary of State was also pretty clear on the subject. He said:
We are not intent on extending further the selective process.
During the election campaign, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
We are not in favour of selection.
There are a number of different nuances, but right up to election day, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) could reasonably have expected


those on the Labour Front Bench to be clear in their opposition at least to the extension of selection, and occasionally to the principle.
It would be untrue to say that there has been a flash of blinding light, but there appears to be a flickering dawn of realisation on the part of the Government that that is incompatible with their commitment to high standards and to working in partnership with those who share that commitment. The relevant clauses start unambiguously enough. Clause 90 says:
No admission arrangements … may make provision for selection by ability unless"—
and then lists a range of exceptions. I suspect that some will have been expected by Labour Back-Benchers, although not with much enthusiasm, as the Government made it clear before election day that they would allow, with considerable—and from my point of view, unwelcome—restrictions, the continued operation of at least some grammar schools.
Clause 91 makes it clear that, where existing selective arrangements are in place in schools that are not grammar schools, there is no statutory bar on that, so we are making a further step forward. Clause 92 allows selection in the context of banding arrangements, but clause 93 is one of the most interesting—certainly one of the most hopeful—clauses in the Bill, because it allows selection of up to 10 per cent. of school population by aptitude in any school where the admission authority is satisfied that that school has a specialism.
I hope that the Minister will make it crystal clear that any foundation school and any voluntary-aided school within the terms of the Bill is its own admission authority. Therefore, if I read the Bill correctly, the governing body of any voluntary aided school or any foundation school has it within its power to determine that it is a school with a specialism, and to select up to 10 per cent. of the school population by aptitude for that specialism, within the terms of clause 93.

Mr. Byers: indicated assent.

Mr. Dorrell: The Minister nods in assent, and I am pleased that he does, because I regard that as a significant further break in the ice of Labour's hitherto blanket hostility to the principle of selection. I welcome the further break-up of that iceberg.

Mr. Byers: For the record, I was nodding my head to indicate that I would reply in detail to those points when I wind up the debate.

Mr. Dorrell: I look forward to listening to what the Minister says in detail. If my interpretation of the clause is right, it allows an opportunity for schools to develop greater specialism and diversity, and to deliver the commitment that the Government claim to improving the quality of education available to British schoolchildren.
If that development of policy is welcome, the same cannot be said of the treatment of grammar schools in the Bill. Clauses 95 to 97 establish the machinery for the abolition of grammar schools. That will please the hon. Member for Workington, but it will not please anyone anywhere in the country who wants to provide the opportunity for children from whatever background to improve themselves, and to offer the best possible ladder to opportunity and improved chances in life.
The Government's attitude to grammar schools has several aspects that stand out. One is that they still see it unambiguously as a one-way ratchet, despite their dawning, flickering realisation on some issues. The partnership that they claim with those who are committed to improving schools is a partnership only with those who currently have grammar schools. Despite all the rhetoric about diversity, they offer no opportunity for a particular area or community to introduce a grammar school structure if it chooses to do so. I do not understand the logic that enables a Government to allow the continued existence of grammar schools in one area, but not to allow their introduction in another.
All the detail of this passage, as the Secretary of State will acknowledge, is to be set out. We shall oppose these clauses when they come up in Committee, because we think that they are wrong-headed. I seek from the Minister when he winds up this evening a commitment that the draft regulations, which will be the teeth of these clauses, will be published in good time, so that we have them before we discuss the clauses in Committee.

Ms Margaret Hodge: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, in a particular set of circumstances, if parents had voted for the closure of a grammar school, he would think it right or wrong for a Secretary of State to adhere to the views of local people?

Mr. Dorrell: What I think is wrong is for the Government to introduce a set of clauses that are so one-sided that they provide only a one-way ratchet.
That is not the only, or even the main, act of vandalism in the Bill. At its heart are the 55 clauses to which I have referred, which deal with the new framework for schools. They have a simple purpose: to abolish grant-maintained schools. The cornerstone—the sine qua non—of the Bill is to abolish the locally managed grant-maintained schools that have been developing in our system over the past few years.
That is why this is a bad Bill, and it is the most important reason why we shall oppose it this evening. It reveals that all the talk of a commitment to work with those who are committed to high standards is simply humbug. Let us look at the record of grant-maintained schools.
For A-levels, half of the top 100 schools in Britain are grant-maintained schools. The top three places are held by grant-maintained schools. For GCSE, the proportion of pupils achieving five or more A to C grades is 53 per cent. in grant-maintained schools, and 40 per cent. in the rest of the maintained sector. According to evidence published by the Secretary of State less than one month ago, 240 schools have improved for four years running in terms of their published results. Of those, one third are grant-maintained schools. Eight out of 20–40 per cent.—of the top 20 schools are grant-maintained schools. That sector accounts for 6 per cent. of the total number of schools in the system.

Mr. Blunkett: Twenty per cent. of secondary schools.

Mr. Dorrell: The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position 20 per cent. of secondary schools.
That is true, and shows that grant-maintained schools are performing roughly twice as well as the rest of the maintained sector.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, with the best will in the world, and being as generous as possible to local education authorities, they have a much wider range of perceived responsibilities than individual schools; that grant-maintained schools have frequently, in my area at least, put the interests of their pupils at the head of their priorities; and that, as a consequence of taking themselves out of the local education authority's straitjacket, grant-maintained schools have been able to perform a great deal better than they would otherwise have done?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right. Why have grant-maintained schools delivered such performance? It is as my hon. Friend says: because their responsibility is focused within the school, they are free from excessive intervention from elsewhere in the system, and they can fulfil their responsibility to deliver standards to the children in those schools.

Mr. Blunkett: If one gives a school more money, extensions of its buildings, and the power to choose whichever pupils it wishes, is it not possible that the school might do better?

Mr. Dorrell: The Secretary of State is hunting for excuses. As he well knows, the funds available to grant-maintained schools were determined by reference to the other schools in the area in which that grant-maintained school was working. The Secretary of State is not prepared to face the facts about the improved performance of the education system that has been delivered by having responsibility focused within the individual school.
The abolition of local management in the grant-maintained sector, and the taking of power back into the hands of the local education authorit—and even worse, into the hands of the Department for Education and Employment—is the change that goes to the heart of the Bill.
We believe that schools are local institutions that should be accountable to the community and responsive to the needs of the children in them. The result of the development of that policy has been a diverse and flexible system. That, among other reasons, is why I support the Secretary of State in his commitment to develop selection by aptitude in order to allow a more diverse, flexible system. I look forward to hearing the Minister explaining that policy from the Dispatch Box later this evening.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If grant-maintained schools are so wonderful, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the majority of Conservative Back Benchers send their children to public schools and totally bypass the state education system?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has scored a spectacular own goal. My right hon. and hon. Friends want to see a diverse system which includes support for

those children who wish to enter the independent education system. If the hon. Gentleman seriously wanted to introduce a unified system, he should not have voted against the abolition of the assisted places scheme.
Integral to the Government's vision of centralisation of power are those passages in the Bill that deal with education development plans. The Secretary of State says, quite rightly, that every school should have a plan for the development of the service it delivers. However, the Secretary of State then goes off the rails. He believes that, because each school must have a plan, it must be accountable to the local education authority for all the key details of that plan. The local education authority is then accountable to the Secretary of State for the delivery of the key details of that plan.
The planning structure that the Secretary of State has erected in this Bill resembles nothing so much as the orthodoxy of 1960s economic planning structures. According to the structure established by the Secretary of State, everything throughout the school system is accountable not within the school—as should occur in a local institution—or even to the local education authority, but, through the planning structure, to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Willis: rose—

Mr. Dorrell: If the hon. Gentleman, as a Liberal Democrat, is true to the traditions of liberal local democracy, he should be as opposed as anyone to the nationalisation of the school system that the Secretary of State is introducing.

Mr. Willis: I apologise for attempting to make my point so impolitely. Was not the introduction of the national curriculum by the previous Conservative Government a gross act of centralisation the like of which we had not seen before?

Mr. Dorrell: I do not agree. I was talking about the planning structure and, as I have given an undertaking to sit down at five o'clock, I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider the terms of clauses 7 and 8. They give the Secretary of State responsibility for approving every local education authority plan. Local education authorities will be required to change the plans if the Secretary of State does not agree with them. The Secretary of State will have the power to change the plans and, even if he does not change them, he has a duty—not merely the power—to monitor the discharge of those plans by local education authorities.
The power that the Bill affords to the Secretary of State for Education resembles nothing so much as the power that the Health Secretary has to intervene directly in appointed local health authorities. Accountability for the health service in this country has always been through the Secretary of State to the House. However, accountability in the school system is not to an appointed local education authority but to a locally elected education authority.
In this Bill, the Secretary of State removes all the checks from the British school system and makes himself accountable for every detail of what goes on in that system. If the Bill is passed as presently drafted, the Secretary of State will have nowhere to hide: he will be responsible from the Government Dispatch Box for the


services delivered in British schools in the same way as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health—his comrade in arms against the Chancellor of the Exchequer—is accountable for what goes on in an avowedly national health service.
That point is emphasised by the terms of clause 8 which, for the first time, give the Secretary of State the power to issue instructions directly to the staff of a local education authority over the heads of elected councillors. The Bill will grant that new power to nationalise our school system. I can think of no better way of summing up my reservations about the Bill than by quoting the words of the Minister for School Standards. On 2 March 1993, the then hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers), referring to a clause in the Conservative's Education Bill, said:
It starkly demonstrates the way in which power is being concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State. It does not give power to schools, governors or parents; it gives power to the holder of the office of Secretary of State for Education. It represents one of the most dramatic extensions of Whitehall power since 1945."—[Official Report, 2 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 178–9.]
The Minister has summed up this situation accurately: his words have become a boomerang that has hit his right hon. Friend directly between the eyes.
The Bill is about not school standards, but school bureaucracy. How else can the Government explain the provisions in the Bill regarding not just education development plans but school organisation plans? I shall detain the House for a moment on the Bill's proposals in that regard. School organisation plans seem to be constituted according to a formula that has not been used since they drew up the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire.
Clause 25 gives each local education authority responsibility for preparing a school organisation plan. That plan is then considered by a school organisation committee, the membership of which is unclear but the decisions of which must be unanimous. If the committee fails—through some mischance—to reach a unanimous decision, the adjudicator is called in to decide what the plan should be. The local education authority remains responsible for carrying out the plan—unless the Secretary of State intervenes under the terms of schedule 7, in which case he may offer another set of proposals that presumably compete with those of the adjudicator. There must then be a public inquiry, but it must find in a manner consistent with the Secretary of State's ruling. That is an extraordinary way of confusing responsibility and producing a diffuse system of responsibility for school organisation.
As is often the case with the present Government, the aspirations to high quality education are not wrong, but the Secretary of State has failed totally to translate his words into anything resembling action. The Bill does not promise improvements in education—still less does it live by the excellent principles set out in the Secretary of State's White Paper, such as intervention being in inverse proportion to success and working in conjunction, in

co-operation and in partnership with those who are committed to higher standards in education. The Bill delivers centralisation of power on the local education authority and on the office of the Secretary of State. It also delivers tier upon tier of new bureaucracy—education development plans, plans to reduce class sizes, early years development plans and school organisation plans.
The piece de resistance at the end of the Bill is the home-school contract for every school. [Interruption.] Labour Members cheer that proposal. Schools are obliged to go through a preparation process, a consultation process and an adjustment process regarding the new home school contracts. What do such contracts amount to at the end of that process? The answer is: not a row of beans. The contracts are unenforceable, and they will influence the actions of neither the school nor the parents.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: The purpose of home-school contracts is to try to ensure that parents take responsibility for their children's education and that they work in partnership with schools to achieve the best for their children. In the past few years, schools have been unable to work as closely as they should with parents. That is the point of home-school contracts.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it would be desirable to have home-school contracts which influence parents and make them more supportive regarding what goes on in schools and which bind schools more closely with parents. I agree whole-heartedly with that idea. However, I cannot understand how that objective will be delivered by requiring schools to go through a hugely bureaucratic process and not allowing them any means of securing the changes in parental behaviour that the hon. Gentleman seeks. The Bill makes it crystal clear that those pieces of paper will not be allowed to influence the way in which any individual acts. What is the point of having a contract that has no influence over the actions of individuals?
The one thing that the Bill does not promise, as the Secretary of State made clear in his sedentary interjection earlier in my speech, is more money. That is the one thing that head teachers and staffroom teachers throughout Britain are looking to the Government, including the Secretary of State, to deliver so as to put flesh on the bones of the Government's rhetoric.
I see that the Secretary of State for Health has joined us in the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman is a comrade in arms in the opposition to delivering the specific changes that the Prime Minister sees as the only means of delivering the improvement that the right hon. Gentleman wants for the health service and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment wants for schools. When the history of the next three months is written, it will not be the Bill and its consideration in Committee that will be remembered. Instead, history will focus on the Secretary of State's failure to deliver his much-trumpeted 5.7 per cent., and that is what we shall be monitoring in the months ahead.

Orders of the Day — BSE

5 pm

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the beef industry and on BSE and its consequences, but first I repeat my earlier apology to you and to Members on both sides of the House for the problem that occurred with the computers in my office earlier today, which necessitated the postponement of the statement. I recognise that that postponement has not been convenient for right hon. and hon. Members, and I give my unreserved apology for that happening.
Many UK beef producers face exceptional difficulties including closed export markets, the need to adjust to BSE-related controls and low prices.
The House will be aware that livestock producers have demonstrated at ports and elsewhere over recent weeks. Some demonstrations have involved interference with trade and, in one case, the destruction of a consignment. Such action will not be tolerated here.
The Government have already committed very large sums to supporting the beef industry. All told, some £2 billion was paid in 1996–97, and we expect to spend some £1.4 billion in 1997–98. These are very large sums indeed. They cannot be maintained indefinitely.
There is over-supply of beef throughout Europe, and a long-term decline in consumption of beef everywhere. The Government are convinced of the need for substantial restructuring of the European industry. The European Commission also recognises that restructuring is vital, and has proposed radical changes to the EU beef regime in the framework of Agenda 2000. The Government strongly agree and believe that the restructuring needs to start now. In the interests of consumers, taxpayers, the environment and not least farmers themselves, we must reform the beef industry so that it becomes economically and environmentally sustainable.
Our long-term aim should be to reduce the scale of the subsidy to producers. That is what we shall continue to argue for in Brussels. As BSE is eliminated from the UK cattle herd, the current very high levels of taxpayers' support will also inevitably be wound down.
In future, there will be fewer producers but a more viable beef industry in the UK and Europe generally. It is essential for UK producers to plan now on the basis that major changes will come about. In the long run, such structural change will be beneficial for the industry and for the economy as a whole. The Government are committed to bringing it about as quickly as possible.
The Government therefore now intend to open early consultations with the farming industry to achieve the restructuring that is essential. In that context, we shall explore whether the EU' s early retirement scheme and other EU structural measures can play a part in achieving the Government's objectives in the longer term.
Also with a view to restructuring, the Commission has proposed as part of Agenda 2000 that consideration be given to the overlap between less-favoured areas and areas of high nature value, and to the scope for transforming the related support scheme—which in the UK, is delivered via hill livestock compensatory allowances—into an instrument to maintain and to promote low-input farming.
The Government support the Commission's efforts to replace HLCAs, which are production-linked payments, with instruments better designed to deliver environmental benefits. The Government intend to review the existing HLCA scheme with those objectives in mind.
While restructuring is necessary and desirable, it should occur as a result of careful, rational decisions by those concerned. Present circumstances are not conducive to such a process. Producers are under intense pressure, and any restructuring brought about now might not be well founded. Accordingly, there is a strong case for exceptional, one-off help. That will give producers time to prepare for the future, but I must emphasise that those payments are exceptional and one off.
Subject to consultation with the European Commission, I therefore propose to utilise £60 million for the beef sector from the EU compensation available to offset the effects of sterling green rate revaluations; it will be distributed mostly via extra payments for suckler cows. Most of the benefit will go to hill farmers. The payments are 100 per cent. EU funded, although such payments are subject to the Fontainebleau mechanism.
I also propose to increase hill livestock compensatory allowances by £25 million for 1998 only, the increase to be divided equally between beef and sheep. About 25 per cent. of the payments are funded by the EU, but that is also subject to the Fontainebleau mechanism. By any test, £85 million of additional support is substantial.
Let me reiterate the Government's aim for agriculture policy. It is to change fundamentally the narrow producer focus of the present common agriculture policy, to decouple support from production, to work for sustainable farming and to give consumers, taxpayers and the environment greater priority.
I turn now to even more serious matters. As the House knows all too well, BSE has had the gravest human consequences. The scientific data we now have provide convincing evidence that the agent that causes BSE is the same as that which causes the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. That dreadful disease has already cost the lives of more than 20 people, most of them young adults. The Government feel the deepest sympathy with their families. Naturally they want to know how their loved ones came to contract a fatal disease. BSE has also threatened the livelihood of thousands of people throughout the farming and food industries; it has cost the taxpayer huge sums; and it has caused considerable difficulties in our international relations. It has been, literally, a disaster.
The Government agree with those who have been arguing that a national human tragedy of this importance, taken together with the economic and other disruption that has ensued, requires a full, independent assessment. We have a responsibility to the country to take a reasoned look at how circumstances developed in this disastrous manner.
Events since the parliamentary statements on 20 March 1997, Official Report, columns 716–17, have been, and continue to be, the subject of extensive political and media attention, and have to some extent obscured the initial chain of developments through which BSE emerged. For all those reasons, the Government have decided to institute an inquiry into the emergence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and new-variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease. The Government have accordingly asked


Lord Justice Phillips to carry out a non-statutory inquiry into the emergence and identification of BSE and new-variant CJD and the action taken in response to it up to 20 March 1996, and to report within a year. Its terms of reference are:
To establish and review the history of the emergence and identification of BSE and new-variant CJD in the United Kingdom and of the action taken in response to it up to 20 March 1996; to reach conclusions on the adequacy of that response, taking account of the state of knowledge at the time; and to report on these matters by 31 December 1998 to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I am setting out fuller details of the inquiry in a separate written answer today. Let me emphasise again that the aim is not to reopen old wounds. [Laughter.] One would hardly have thought that laughter was appropriate to such a serious matter. Nor is the aim to make party political capital. As I have said, it is to discover the facts, to take a reasoned look at how matters came to pass and to learn the necessary lessons for the future.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written to the Leader of the Opposition inviting his support for the inquiry, and to Lord Callaghan, Baroness Thatcher and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) about the release of papers of their Administrations to the inquiry.
Following long-standing conventions on access to papers of a previous Administration, present Ministers will play no part in the presentation of evidence by their officials to the inquiry. The Government would, in any case, not expect to comment on the course of the inquiry until we have received Lord Justice Phillips's report. The Government will answer to the House in the normal way for any action following that report.
The Government intend to work closely with the beef industry to resolve its difficulties. The Government also seek the co-operation of all those involved in the circumstances surrounding the emergence of BSE and new-variant CJD to ensure that we learn all the lessons we can from the disaster. We owe it to the families involved, to the public at large and to our future generations. I commend this statement to the House.

Mr. Michael Jack: May I first thank you, Madam Speaker, for your courtesy in affording us the suspension of the House while we considered the statement that eventually arrived from the Minister? While we all have sympathy for computer problems, we should not forget that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be running the new computerised cattle database.
Given that we have been talking about today's statement for the best part of a week and that British agriculture has been in a state of crisis for much longer than that, I find it quite staggering that the Minister could not have produced the statement before his computers failed. Perhaps he should not have moved them to his sumptuous premises in Smith square.
The first question we must ask ourselves is whether the statement was worth waiting for. For anyone who knows or understands anything about British agriculture, the short answer is an unreserved no. By its third page, the statement has painted a chilling picture for the British beef industry. Does the Minister acknowledge that it is

now policy to cut the size of the British beef industry—just when many farmers are scraping and scrimping to stay in it?
The statement says that the Minister wishes to bring forward the rundown of the industry as quickly as possible. Does he agree that, in relation to Europe, he wants us to do it unilaterally? Does he further agree that his proposal to allow the United Kingdom industry to restructure Europe's beef industry is effectively exporting agricultural jobs to mainland Europe? Is not his package of the 90th review—the early retirement scheme—the first example of Labour's work-to-welfare programme?
I was a third of the way through the statement before I found any mention of help for the United Kingdom agricultural sector and beef in particular. It is a travesty for the Minister to tell the House that he is giving £85 million to the beef and sheep industry. At the last agriculture Question Time, the Minister gave me a straightforward no. He said that there would be no more money for agriculture because there was no more money. So where is the money coming from?
The Minister says that he is giving £85 million to the industry. How can that be? Does he agree that, with higher meat hygiene charges of £44 million, the loss in income of the over-30-months scheme of £29 million, the extra expense of £19 million on the cattle passport scheme and the lack of full compensation for the reduced HLCAs of £35 million, he is taking £127 million from the sectors that he claims to be helping? In addition, does he not acknowledge that, during his stewardship of the Ministry, he has had to announce a £1.8 billion fall in receipts to farmers because of the drop in prices? Has he not tried to put before the House a travesty of the true position? Does he agree that the package he has just announced is providing no help to any sector of British agriculture other than sheep and cattle?
Does the Minister accept that many farmers heeded his words in good faith when he said that they should come to the House and lobby in a democratic fashion to put their views? Does he not realise that their hopes were raised as a result of that exercise and that now there will be despair tonight in the farmhouses and the countryside at his announcement? Does that not show that the Government care little for rural Britain?
I now turn to the inquiry that the Minister has announced today. Let me say on behalf of the Opposition that, if it helps to find better ways to protect the public health, we welcome it. Of course we will give the inquiry every assistance. Does the Minister acknowledge, however, that policy to date has been founded on the best scientific advice available, and that £56 million has already been spent on research?
When did the Minister last meet Lord Justice Phillips to discuss the way in which the inquiry will operate? In the light of his almost unbelievable statement that the Government are not out to make political capital out of the matter—he must think that we were born yesterday—will he place in the House of Commons the details of the instructions to Lord Justice Phillips as to the way in which the inquiry is to be conducted?
In his statement, the Minister talked about assessors. Can he tell us who those assessors are? How will they be chosen? Does he accept that the people who may have to provide scientific back-up to the inquiry are the current experts in setting policy in BSE? How much will the


inquiry cost? Will the Minister assure me that he will provide the necessary practical, scientific, secretarial and financial back-up and support to those past Ministers, officials and others who may be called to give evidence to the inquiry, so that their evidence can be properly given? Will he tell us exactly who in Whitehall will have sight of the documents if it will not be Ministers?
Is not the real reason for the statement the fact that it will provide a public smokescreen for the Minister's failures to help British agriculture? Does the Minister not realise that he has given an open goal to those in Europe who do not want the beef ban lifted? Does he not realise that they will say to him, "If you are so concerned about the handling of the BSE inquiry that you now need a separate inquiry on the matter, we had better wait until the results of that are known before we even consider raising the ban"? He has failed to convince the European standing veterinary committee to impose the specified risk materials ban. His statement is an open goal and a gift to those who would keep the beef ban in place.
Does the Minister realise that the inquiry has been proposed to act as a smokescreen for his inability to enforce the ban on meat coming into this country without SRMs being removed and his total inability to impose his ban on beef on the bone? Does he not realise that the statement and inquiry will give the British beef industry—an industry weakened by his Government's actions—up to two years of uncertainty, and will do nothing to reinforce the messages of confidence that he has been trying to put out about the safety of British beef?
This is a miserable little statement. It has been by a Minister who is exhibiting Scrooge-like tendencies towards British agriculture. It will do nothing to enhance the safety of British beef. Farmers will see it for what it is. He has lost out to the Treasury and failed British agriculture.

Dr. Cunningham: At the end of that long, convoluted series of questions, it is difficult to know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman's position is either on public expenditure or the future of the beef industry—or, indeed, the inquiry itself. He seemed to want it both ways. He is, after all, a right hon. Member who was both a Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and a Treasury Minister when the events were unfolding.
On the right hon. Member's first comment about the crisis in the British beef industry, we all know very well the origins of that crisis. We all know who was in charge in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the crisis developed. It is manifestly absurd to suggest that the problems faced by our beef farmers have all occurred in the past seven months.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's disdainful reference to £85 million-worth of additional expenditure and support for farmers, we shall see whether the farming industry and the rural communities share his view. I will tell him something. How can those former occupants of the Treasury Bench be so disdainful about public expenditure when, with this additional money, we shall be spending on one sector and one product—beef—between £1.4 billion and £1.5 billion in the current financial year? That is a measure of the support for the beef industry.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to my failure—I think he said that is what it was—to take action to prevent beef coming into the country that had not had SRMs removed. That decision will take effect from 1 January. It has been widely welcomed by farmers and Farmers Weekly, whose leader column said:
Dr. Cunningham deserves our support for defending the best interests of UK consumers and farmers.
On the position of the right hon. Gentleman and, for that matter, the shadow Cabinet on the decision on selling beef on the bone, is he aware that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), a Minister of Agriculture in the Conservative Government, said on the radio that, if he had had the same advice as me, he would have taken the same decision? Is the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) aware that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), another member of the shadow Cabinet, said something similar?
What does the right hon. Member for Fylde think about the MAFF press release which says:
SEAC and the Chief Medical Officer have said that any risk is minuscule. The Government's policy of extreme caution in relation to BSE requires us to ensure that the tissues in which infectivity might potentially occur are removed from the human and animal food chain"?
That is a MAFF press release, put out by his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), the shadow Leader of the House—another member of the shadow Cabinet—when she was Minister of Agriculture. Who is speaking for the Opposition on safety in food? I take it that, in spite of the chief medical officer's comments that no one should knowingly allow infectivity involving BSE into the human food chain, the right hon. Member for Fylde begs to know better. That is his apparent position.
The right hon. Member dismissed a reference to the possibility of an early retirement scheme for farmers. Why he did that, I do not know. I can tell him that there are plenty of people—and organizations—in agriculture who are interested in sitting down to discuss it with us. That is another thing about which he and his colleagues did absolutely nothing during 18 years of government.
The right hon. Member began by saying that he would support the inquiry into BSE and new-variant CJD, and then went on to disparage it at length, saying that, among other things, it would deter people in Europe from lifting the beef ban. He has not a shred of evidence for saying that, of course—not a scintilla. We have made much more progress in dealing with our colleagues in Europe than he and his colleagues ever did, and we shall continue to do so.
As for the right hon. Member's remarks about political bias, does he really expect us to believe that Lord Justice Phillips would accept the appointment of conducting this important inquiry in the public interest on anything other than totally independent grounds?

Mr. Jack: Give us some details.

Dr. Cunningham: I have given more details this afternoon in a written answer. I have given the terms of reference in my statement. There will be two special assessors—one for scientific matters and one for administration. We shall discuss their appointment with


Lord Justice Phillips before announcing their names. The reality is that, if the Opposition had nothing to hide, they would welcome an inquiry into the issues, as I believe the public will.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister acknowledge—given the financial context of his statement and the fact that the Liberal Democrats have been critical of the Labour party before, during and since the election for its unwillingness to break the Conservative constraints set by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the farming industry will be totally bemused to hear the Conservatives, of all people, complaining that their constraints have been broken? After all, the Conservatives have previously demanded that those constraints be broken in the context of supporting the beef industry.
Taken together with the fact that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman spent longer talking about the inquiry than he did about the details of the package, the Conservatives' reaction tells us all we need to know about their credibility and priorities. That is the parliamentary and political point.
Will the Minister also acknowledge that some decisions relevant to the beef sector of the industry are entirely the remit of his Administration, not least the changes to the over-30-months scheme and the additional costs that will be imposed next year by passports and the like? Given the total package, in the context of green pound revaluation and the horrendous difficulties that the strength of sterling is causing, large sections of the agricultural community will reach the political and practical conclusion that—try though he has—his proposals will be too little, too late for many of our hill farmers and rural communities.
On the question of the Commission and the second part of the Minister's statement, I seek further reassurance about the political attitudes at Brussels level. Some people at that level will take any opportunity they can to hold back further progress in the lifting of the beef ban. Has the Minister discussed with the Commission the terms or the timetable of the committee of inquiry in advance of his statement today? Without doubt, some of our past problems with Brussels have been because announcements have been made here, and the first that the Commission has heard of them was over the news tapes and not directly from Ministers.
I make a final general plea to the Minister. Will he recognise that we cannot restructure in isolation or without due regard to the longer-term aims of Agenda 2000 and the reform of the common agricultural policy? He has rightly identified the need for greater emphasis on conservation and countryside management generally. Will he also recognise that the most fundamental requirement to make that a reality is the people of the countryside? If the net effect of the statement is that more of the sons and daughters of smaller-scale, less well-heeled family farmers do not anticipate being able to follow their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers in the rural communities that they have served so well, that will negate and make impossible the very priority that the Minister and the EU Commissioner have set out for CAP reform. The crisis of morale will remain, despite the statement, and we will have to return to some of those issues, as a matter of urgency, in the new year.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for a more measured and more informed contribution than

that from the right hon. Member for Fylde. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman spent longer trying to damn the inquiry than referring to the situation of the beef industry; that proves that he did not have a lot to say.
I am aware that costs that will be introduced at the beginning of the next financial year will have a significant impact on the industry, but we must face the reality that we cannot go on simply using more and more taxpayers' money in the way that we have done. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the reluctance of some young people to follow their parents into farming. I see that among hill farmers in my constituency.
It is principally because—as has been evidenced in the 28 years that I have represented them—their position in the farming income league table has not changed. Hill farmers were at the bottom of the league when I was elected to the House almost 28 years ago, and they are still there. The inescapable conclusion is that the policies that have been followed have not made it easier, more profitable or more economically advantageous to pursue hill farming. That is why young people choose other and better careers for themselves.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned agri-monetary compensation. If I had taken advantage of the total agri-monetary compensation available to the Government for the beef sector, it would have amounted to £77 million. The package that I have announced exceeds that figure, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He said that the package is too little, too late. Time will be the judge of that. My guess is that most reasonable people in agriculture will welcome the statement as representing significant help for them.
As for the hon. Gentleman's question about the views of Brussels, I share his concern that the political attitudes of some people—and not veterinary or medical science, or the manifest safety of British beef—have led to the decisions that have been made. As I have said many times, that is unacceptable to the Government, and it was for that reason, among others, that I made it clear to my colleagues last week that I was not prepared to delay any further the introduction of the specified risk materials controls on imports of beef to this country. For those reasons, and because of our consistent pressure, I hope and expect that the Commission will produce a proposal in January, to be considered in Brussels, for the partial lifting of the ban.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Will my right hon. Friend agree that farmers in less-favoured areas, especially in Wales, will be helped greatly by his announcement? Will he also confirm that he will press his European partners to ensure that the ban on British beef will be lifted in the near future, because that is the real answer for our farming industry in the long term?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is absurd for the Conservative party to pretend that giving an industrial sector such as the beef sector another £85 million will somehow damage its interests or will not be generally welcomed by people in the industry. [Interruption.] We hear it again: too little, too late. We are proposing to give the beef industry more money in this financial year than the previous Conservative Government did. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Fylde


says from a sedentary position, "Less than you have taken away." That is also wrong, because most of the announcements that we have made will not take effect until the beginning of the next financial year. I can promise my hon. Friend's constituents, and farmers generally, that we shall continue to work assiduously and constructively with our European colleagues for a lifting of the ban.

Mr. John Swinney: May I welcome the Minister's statement in relation to the BSE inquiry, but seek his reassurance that the inquiry will not be a further obstacle to the lifting of the beef ban during the deliberations that take place over the next 12 months?
Secondly, the Minister has made clear the Government's commitment to some form of decommissioning scheme and restructuring within the beef sector. The details he has given so far have a rather indiscriminate feel about them. What reassurance can he give to quality sectors of the market—such as the Scottish quality beef herds—that they will be protected from an indiscriminate cut in production?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman understand that there are declining incomes and revenues in almost all sectors of the farming industry, and that the assistance is targeted at a proportion of the industry? There will still be enormous unease in areas of the farming industry where incomes have substantially fallen in recent months and years, as there is nothing on offer in the package today.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his supportive comments about the decision to institute a public inquiry, and I am sure that that decision will be widely welcomed.
I emphasise that we want to have a dialogue with the industry about an early retirement scheme, which will be voluntary—after all, we cannot make it compulsory. Britain has never taken advantage of the European Union availability of early retirement schemes. Ten of our partner countries have such schemes; we and four others do not. Rather like their failure to make an early start on the decommissioning of fishing vessels—which they should have done, and could have done, but failed to do—the previous Administration failed to take any action on providing an early retirement scheme for farmers. I want to have a dialogue about that with farmers. If we can agree the general outline of a scheme and have it approved by Brussels, it will be available—but, I emphasise, on a voluntary basis.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about other sectors of the farming industry. We have said from the outset that we recognised that the problems were most severe in the beef sector and that if we were to produce additional resources, we would target them at that sector. That is what we have done.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Is the Minister aware that the families of those people—young people, in the main—who died from the new-variant CJD will be pleased with the announcement of the inquiry today? When I see Opposition Members laughing at that announcement—I have a constituent who died from CJD—I think that they have their priorities wrong. The inquiry will be public, and we need to get to the truth. Will the inquiry have the power to subpoena witnesses?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that his prediction is right, and that the families—

and people well beyond the families—who have lost loved ones as a result of a cruel degenerative disease for which there is no cure will welcome the decision.
The answer to my hon. Friend's question on the subpoenaing of witnesses is no. This will be a non-statutory inquiry, rather similar to the Scott inquiry in that regard. As then, the Government will watch the proceedings carefully. We will take advice from Lord Justice Phillips, and if he believes that some extra powers are needed, we will be ready to consider them.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On the question of the inquiry, does the Minister accept that I and those of my colleagues who had ministerial responsibility look forward to the report of the inquiry, believing as we do that—at least for the most part—all the necessary decisions were fully and promptly taken? Does he further accept the real anxiety that the mere fact of holding the inquiry will make the lifting of the ban more difficult to obtain?
On the question of compensation, does the right hon. Gentleman understand the anxiety in the farming industry as to the modesty of this package? Will he accept that there will be considerable concern at what he has said about restructuring, which, in effect, amounts to a reduction in UK production capacity which is not matched by a reduction in capacities in the EU? Does he also accept that there will be concern that he has not done the things that lay particularly within his competence—to reduce, at least in part, the charges he has imposed, and to lift the weight cap on the over-30-months scheme?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments about the inquiry. He referred to the modesty of the package. We live in strange times when £85 million of additional taxpayers' money is described as modest. His comment reflects on the colossal sums and the scale of the finance currently going into the beef sector. Set beside the £1.4 billion provided for the beef sector, most people would say that £85 million was modest. However, set beside the calls on the Government's public expenditure and the need for constraint—and compared with the level of support given to other industrial sectors—£85 million remains a substantial sum. People outside will be astonished to hear the Conservative party saying that it thinks that £85 million of their money can be produced just like that and dismissed as not sufficient, as he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have dismissed it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about restructuring. It is not the Government's position that we want to see the restructuring of only the UK beef sector. We have made it clear consistently that we want an urgent restructuring of the beef sector in Europe as a whole. One consequence of the ban is that Britain is taking far more of its share of the burden of beef; the over-30-months scheme and the calf processing scheme are clear examples of that. We want to see the beef sector in Europe as a whole restructured. I thought that the Conservative party supported the proposals for reform in Agenda 2000. I thought that that was Tory party policy; it is certainly the policy of the National Farmers Union.

Mr. Russell Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which will be welcomed in


many rural communities, not only because of the additional finance for the industry but because of the establishment of the inquiry.
Earlier today in my constituency, a local meat packing company—Lockerbie Meat Packers—announced that it was to go into receivership with the immediate loss of some 71 jobs, with another 24 jobs in jeopardy. I sincerely hope that it is my right hon. Friend's long-term aim to remove the ban on beef exports. It is somewhat ironic that, only last month, this Government sat with other EU states at a summit to discuss the importance of jobs within the EU. I hope that my right hon. Friend will push as hard as possible to ensure that the ban is lifted.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to draw attention to the continuing consequences of the ban on the exports of British beef. Sadly, he has experienced some of those consequences in his constituency, and I very much share his sorrow that people are losing their jobs. That is exactly why it is important for us to have constructive and open dialogue with our European colleagues about the nature of our rigorous approach to safeguarding British beef and the strength of our case for lifting the ban. If our European colleagues and partners had any idea that we were withholding information, that would be far more likely to prevent us from getting the ban lifted than our open and constructive attitude to all the issues.

Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister understand the sheer despair of farmers at the frozen immobility of the Government in the past two months, which has made the incomes crisis worse? Does he realise that he already has an early redundancy scheme—it is known as bankruptcy? Does he acknowledge the sheer haemorrhage of farmers of all sorts off the land, particularly in areas such as his constituency and mine where they are essential to its upkeep? When he next talks about environmental improvements and the role of the environment, will he add that farmers are necessary for the environment?

Dr. Cunningham: I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman's question was—if, indeed, he asked one at all. Yes, I understand what is going on in those areas, as he does, because we represent similar constituencies and he spoke at the Dispatch Box as an Agriculture Minister, with some success.
I do not dispute it when the right hon. Gentleman says that there is a crisis, but I dispute the fact that the crisis has arisen only since 1 May. Being a reasonable man, he must know that the problems, particularly those faced by beef farmers, are very long-standing and deep-seated. The crisis has been gathering momentum for some years. Sadly, the end of it is not in sight. That is the reality of where we are, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends, as well as the farmers, that the way out of the crisis is not simply by throwing more and more public money at it. There have to be better ways than that.

Mr. David Drew: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement and the two aspects that he has dwelt on, may I ask for an assurance? One thing that all farmers are asking for from 1 January is effective labelling of all foreign imports and, more particularly, some dealings not merely with supermarkets, which we

understand have their own difficulties but are coming into order, but with the catering industry, so that it plays fair and there is a level playing field.

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I continue to work for the level playing field that my hon. Friend asks for on behalf of farmers. I know that they want that, and that is the reason for the implementation of the specified risk materials decision from 1 January. That is also why the previous Administration rightly took action to ban imports of over-30-months beef. Farmers keep telling us that they believe that over-30-months beef is coming into Britain, but we have no evidence of that. If they have tangible evidence, we will immediately take action to prosecute the people involved. As for a beef labelling scheme, we expect to have such a scheme in place by the spring of next year.
Finally, next year we will also be publishing for the first time the hygiene assessment scores of abattoirs and meat cutting plants so that everyone—consumers, butchers and wholesalers—will know exactly the quality of hygiene provision in our plants. That, too, should give British beef a positive boost.
I emphasise that British beef is the safest beef produced anywhere in Europe. We continue to take action to ensure that that is so, and I would encourage anyone who buys beef, either as an individual consumer or an organisation, to try wherever and whenever possible to buy British beef.

Mr. Peter Luff: May I seek clarification from the Minister on one point? In an earlier answer, he said that about £77 million was available for the beef sector in agri-monetary compensation. In evidence to the Select Committee on Agriculture, he said that £980 million was available in total across all four agricultural sectors for compensation. Can he say how that breaks down among the four sectors?
Why did the Minister's list of objectives for the reform of the common agricultural policy omit any reference to creating a competitive UK agriculture industry? Does he understand that that fuels suspicions among the farming community that he is happy to see a disproportionate amount of the burden from restructuring falling on the British beef producer rather than throughout Europe as a whole?
Finally, what assurances has the right hon. Gentleman sought from the European Commission and from other member states that they will not use the inquiry as an excuse to delay any aspect of the lifting of the beef export ban?

Dr. Cunningham: There is no answer to the final question because, as the hon. Gentleman knows and as I said earlier, I suspect that some people are more motivated by political or economic considerations than by considerations of human health or veterinary science. We continue to resist that approach wherever and whenever possible.
The hon. Gentleman began by asking me about the total available for agri-monetary compensation. He is right. The total is £980 million. Of course, that would be spread over three years, and up to half of it would have to come from the United Kingdom alone, but 50 per cent. could qualify for some EU support. Within that total and those


restrictions, the total available at present in support for the beef sector is £77 million. I should be happy to come back to his Select Committee to go into that in greater detail, as I understand that it is to investigate the matter.
I said in my statement—the right hon. Member for Fylde questioned this—that we had to have economically as well as environmentally sustainable agriculture. That is one of our objectives, again not merely for the United Kingdom but for reform of the CAP. Those words were contained in the final declaration from the Council of Agriculture Ministers which went to the European summit in Luxembourg. Now we are awaiting specific, detailed proposals to give effect to the legislative changes that we anticipate from Commissioner Fischler in the beef sector, in the dairy sector—I still hope—and in the cereals sector, too.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The statement has been running for nearly an hour and there are many hon. Members on their feet. I shall let it run for a little longer, but I appeal to hon. Members for brisk questions, and I think that the Minister will oblige with brisk answers. We must get through as quickly as possible.

Mr. Barry Jones: In the absence of a Welsh Office statement—I understand the reason for that—may I ask my right hon. Friend about the implications for my constituency, our beef farmers and the amounts of money involved?
I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to have a public inquiry. May I tell him about Miss Vicky Rimmer, a young woman who fell victim to a CJD or CJD-type disease, and who died only last month? Her family will welcome his decision to have an inquiry.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the decision to hold an inquiry. I was making the statement on behalf of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland. I think—I am speaking from memory here—that Wales will benefit by about 25 per cent. of the hill livestock compensatory allowance and about 10 per cent. of the agri-monetary compensation; Welsh farmers will benefit considerably from the statement.

Mr. Tom King: The Minister said that everyone knew the cause of BSE. Will he confirm that he will not rule out Lord Justice Phillips's investigation into alternative possible causes that might be advanced? Does he recognise that the test of his statement will be whether it gives confidence again to the industry, which is facing a very serious crisis? He rightly said that he is not responsible for many of the background problems that affect the beef industry, but what is different under his Administration is the continuing and sustained level of the pound. There have been five increases in interest rates in the past six months and there are reports that because of increasing wage. rates there is likely to be a further increase in interest rates. Does he recognise that that is a particularly grave problem at present and that it is

affecting all markets? Against that background, does he recognise that, sadly, it does not look as though his statement will give the confidence that is needed?

Dr. Cunningham: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I did not say that we knew the cause of BSE; I said that we knew that there was a direct link between BSE and the new variant of CJD. There is scientific evidence for that. Of course it will be for Lord Justice Phillips to decide who should give evidence and the way in which it should be taken. That procedure is entirely a matter for him, and neither I nor any of my ministerial colleagues will intervene in that in any way, as I made clear in my statement and I am happy to make clear again to the right hon. Gentleman and the House.
I accept the point about the test of time being what happens in the market. This morning, I was unhappy to learn when listening to "Farming Today", as no doubt were many right hon. and hon. Members, of the collapse in lamb prices, for example, and of the reality that we are producing more lamb than the market can take. I listened with care to Robert Forster giving the reasons. It is about consumer choice, not only here but abroad. That is another important factor.
Questions about the strength of sterling and interest rate policy are more properly addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the inquiry consider the work of Harash Narang, who was developing a live test for BSE when the resources were taken away by the previous Government? If that research had been successful, it could have saved the country millions, indeed billions, of pounds.

Dr. Cunningham: I have been in correspondence with Dr. Narang, and the Ministry is co-operating with him in a collaborative venture. I can respond as I did to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King): if Dr. Narang wants to give evidence to the inquiry, he should approach Lord Justice Phillips in the normal way. The address of the inquiry secretariat is published in the written answer that I have given today.

Mr. William Thompson: I welcome the crumbs that have fallen to the farmers from the Exchequer's table, but does the Minister recognise that a section of the farming industry, the beef finishers, will not be directly affected by the money? They are the most severely affected people; does he intend to let them go to the wall? What effect will the package have in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Cunningham: Beef finishers should be among the people who benefit from the low cost of cattle in the market. We have directed this assistance—the hon. Gentleman called it crumbs, but he may wish to reconsider, as £85 million is hardly crumbs—to the primary beef producers, and it will benefit them significantly.
Farmers in Northern Ireland will benefit, although I am sorry that I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman by exactly how much; perhaps I can drop him a note about that.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I welcome my right hon. Friend's


statement and particularly the way in which he has managed to target the help towards those sectors that need it most. Will he confirm that farmers in Wales will receive approximately £12 million as a result of his announcement? When can farmers expect to receive that additional help? As he knows, they face very severe financial circumstances. Does he intend to enforce rigorously the controls on imported EU beef and to ensure that they are applied not only at the ports but at the packing plants where much of the processing is done?

Dr. Cunningham: I think that my hon. Friend is right, and that farmers in Wales will benefit by about £12 million. That is based on calculations on the back of an envelope, and I hope that no one will nail my hide to the wall on the figure if it is slightly out. No doubt hon. Members think that they have better reasons for doing that in any case.
When will the money be paid? As soon as is administratively possible, consistent with getting my decision approved by the Commission in Brussels. My hon. Friend asked whether we would be rigorous about enforcing the controls; the answer is yes. Indeed, we now insist that the controls be exercised before any meat arrives in the UK in the first place.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Has the Minister had an opportunity to consider the longer-term effect on those who look after livestock on the uplands and in the less-favoured areas? He has announced £25 million for them today, but he will know that, if they go out of business or take early retirement, that will have a considerable effect on both the rural economy and the local environment in sparsely populated areas. It is only the keeping of livestock and the careful grazing of them on the uplands that maintains the British countryside in its present state. If he has not done that exercise, will he do so urgently?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Lady makes an important point, and we have indeed considered that. She is right to say that hill livestock compensatory allowances are targeted particularly on those in the less-favoured areas. It is also important to recognise that the total of £60 million in agri-monetary compensation is targeted at suckler herds, so some will go to people farming in the upland areas.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I have in my hand an article from March 1989—nearly nine years ago—in which I warned of the danger of the infective agent jumping species from cattle to humans; at that time, the Conservative party accused me of scaremongering. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the factors that contributed to the lack of trust in British beef in Europe was the previous Government's lack of candour and openness, and that the decision to hold an open inquiry will help to rebuild the confidence in British beef that we all want?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The important thing in all such matters is to be absolutely candid and transparent about the problems that we face and how we are to resolve them. The Government are determined to eradicate BSE completely from the national herd. The House, and the United Kingdom as a whole,

have nothing to fear from an inquiry into these events in the terms in which we have set it up. We are more open and more candid about these matters than anyone else; it is important that we should remain so, because that is the basis of the strength of our case.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Given that the Minister has decided to channel this wholly inadequate help to the beleaguered beef farmers through the medium of the HLCAs and the suckler cow premium scheme, can he assure the House that the premium will now be brought up to the maximum permitted by the European Union; and if not, why not?

Dr. Cunningham: That is just a simple demand for more money, and it comes ill from the hon. Gentleman, who, when he was on the Government Benches, used always to be critical of public expenditure.

Mr. David Hanson: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement; for the extra money that is now due to Wales; and for his action since 1 January on a level playing field and on labelling? Can he assure us that the inquiry into the BSE crisis will include an inquiry into the payments made to date to farmers, because there is grave concern in my constituency that much of the money that has been put into the industry has found its way not into farmers' pockets but into those of middlemen?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I think that the final part of his question goes beyond the terms of reference of the inquiry to be held by Lord Justice Phillips.

Mr. John Greenway: Does the Minister not accept that the £25 million that he has announced in HLCA additions would have had more impact if he had announced it to the House two months ago, in the normal course of events, and if the Government had not decided not to pay the £60 million suckler cow addition that the previous Government paid at this time last year? Because of the procrastination, with the Minister going round cap in hand to the Treasury, confidence has been eroded. It is all very well for him to say that he wants to support the British beef industry, but his decision to wind down the industry has caused more and more British beef farmers to go out of production. We will have a smaller effort in beef, and more will be imported.

Dr. Cunningham: I accept none of that. The hon. Gentleman well knows that his party, when in government, made no provision whatever for the continuation the following year of the special one-off payment of £60 million. The fact is that I am providing £85 million; in case he cannot work it out, that is £25 million more.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Has not BSE been our most poisonous inheritance from the Conservative Government? I return to a point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about those who attend at the non-statutory inquiry presided over by Lord Justice Phillips. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that there will be no impediment to civil servants attending? He mentioned former Prime Ministers. Is it simply a matter of courtesy to ask them to open up


the papers relating to their Administrations, or do the Government need their permission to gain full access to all official papers?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and I am happy to tell him that we will place no impediment in the path of anyone. Civil servants from all Departments will co-operate fully with the inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written, as a matter of courtesy, to former Prime Ministers in the period concerned. Papers will be available. Current Ministers will have no involvement in the preparation or provision of those papers, or in giving evidence at the inquiry.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Liberal Democrat Members warmly welcome the judicial inquiry, having pressed for it for 12 months without reaction from the previous Government. Does not the inquiry have two purposes? First, it must learn from mistakes so that we can avoid repetition of what the Minister correctly described as total disaster. Is it not ironic that local government councillors and officers who make drastic mistakes can be surcharged but Ministers escape scot free? Is not the second purpose to ensure that everyone in this country, in Brussels and on the continent knows that there will be no further cover-up, and that we can be assured that British beef, in the Minister's words, is truly not only the safest in the world but demonstrably the safest?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his measured and constructive response. Yes, the principal purpose is to learn from the mistakes that were made—probably genuinely. We must learn the lessons of what has been a human tragedy and a financial disaster. It has been a disaster for everyone associated with our beef industry.
On personal surcharge, the proper view—I had better say that it is my personal view—is that it is inappropriate for people in elected office at any level to be liable to personal surcharge. I have always thought that; I am on the record on that. The people in current difficulties must face the consequences of the law the way it is.
It is important that it is demonstrable beyond any doubt that we have disclosed everything and have not been involved in the withholding of any advice, information or scientific knowledge about how these disastrous events developed. I believe that an inquiry is a further clear demonstration of our commitment to that approach.

Mr. Huw Edwards: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement on the inquiry into BSE and the support for the suckler cow sector, which will benefit farmers in my constituency? Frustration will continue among those farmers when they see imported beef from countries such as Namibia and Botswana being sold in British supermarkets under misleading labels. If it is possible for consumers to know the country of origin of every bottle of wine that they buy, could they not know the country of origin of every joint of meat?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for my statement, respect both in of the

inquiry and of the considerable support for beef farmers. We will introduce a beef labelling scheme from spring next year. While we cannot discriminate against lawful trade—I emphasise that we have legal obligations—it is nevertheless my experience that consumers want to know more and more about the provenance of the food they buy, whether it is animal or vegetable products. We are pressing ahead on that basis. We will encourage supermarkets and food chains to do the same, so that people have all the knowledge that they need about the origin of the food and food products that they buy.

Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the tragedy of the west country in the figures published by Exeter university on the reduction of income—a fall of 85 per cent. for lowland livestock and of 59 per cent. for specialist areas? It goes on with every sector. Does he understand the feeling in the west country that the ban on beef on the bone is a coup de grace? His medical advisers stated that there was a million to one chance of infection. With that information, why cannot the consumer choose whether he wants his Sunday joint to be on the bone or not? Why should we nanny the consumer? We do not do it with cigarette smoking; why should we do it with beef?

Dr. Cunningham: I try very hard to understand the problems faced by beef producers. We shall go on doing so. The actions that I have described today and others that I have taken are all aimed at helping our beef industry. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food published its own agreed analysis of farm incomes on 1 December. The right hon. Gentleman can examine a copy in the Library. I think that the figures are different from the Exeter university ones, which I have not seen. They show very serious falls in income. There is no dispute on that general point.
As for what the right hon. Gentleman said about taking beef off the bone, my wife did a little research with our family butcher this week. He said that he sold six or seven T-bones a week. We are talking about 5 per cent. of beef; 95 per cent. is already sold off the bone. Nothing in what I have decided is going to harm anyone. Let me remind him of the views of the chief medical officer and of the shadow Leader of the House when she was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The CMO serves me, as well as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and said:
It would be matter of grave concern if any tissues that have been shown to transmit BSE were knowingly allowed to remain in the human food chain. This is a real risk, not a theoretical risk.
In June 1994, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said that she had to act with
extreme caution in relation to BSE … to ensure that the tissues in which infectivity might potentially occur are removed from the human … food chain."—[Official Report, 30 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 654.]
That was the position of the Government supported by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). Our position is the same.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: Will the Minister note that in many European countries, the early retirement scheme is linked to a scheme for encouraging young entrants to the industry so that it becomes not only


a restructuring but a revitalising process? If he would consider that, I think that there would be some appreciation of the scheme's introduction.
The Minister has made a great deal of environmental sustainability, but is not the production of beef from grass a model of environmental sustainability compared with the intensive production systems that bring us our poultry meat and much of our pig meat? Is it not time to consider the whole meat sector?
I welcome the Minister's remarks on imports, but would it not be appropriate for the Government to institute a comprehensive investigation—an inquiry, indeed—into imports so that people's minds can be put to rest and they can really understand what is going on and what might be done about it?

Dr. Cunningham: I repeat that the proposal on the early retirement scheme is for discussion; it has not been decided yet. We must try to agree a scheme, first, with farmers and their representatives and, then, with the Commission in Brussels. I am willing to listen to all the arguments about what should be in such a scheme.
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the extensive production of beef and low-input farming, to which I referred in my statement.
As for imports, I believe that we now have the strongest checks and safeguards on imports of beef of any European country. There is always room for improvement, and if I can see practical ways in which to introduce better safeguards, I will consider them. As I have already said, however, it was the previous Administration who made it illegal to import over-30-months beef into Britain. We have built on that approach, and we are now looking at stringent safeguards on all beef imported into this country. If there are others things that we can do which would not fall foul of our obligations in the European Union, I would be willing to consider them.

Mr. James Gray: In the first half of the Minister's statement, he described the plight of British farmers, and his solution was partly to allow for the structural reform of the industry so that more and more farmers will disappear. He then went on to describe the inquiry process and linked that section of his statement with his comments on structural reform by saying that the inquiry is "even more serious" than that reform. Would he not agree that there is nothing more serious than the plight of British farmers at the moment? The British farmer has always provided the backbone of British society, but the Government are setting out to remove it.

Dr. Cunningham: On reflection, the hon. Gentleman may regret that intervention. I said that that inquiry is more serious because CJD has cost the lives of more than 20 young people.

Mr. Gray: Twenty-five farmers have committed suicide.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is not doing his own or his party's case any good by persisting with that. Many more people may die as a consequences of that awful disease, and we need to treat that threat extremely

seriously. That is what the Government are doing. I am sorry that we cannot carry the hon. Gentleman and his party with us.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Can the Phillips inquiry be prevailed on to find out why the previous Government refused for four consecutive years to invest in a cattle identification scheme—an animal tracking centre—which was critical in the Florence agreement and is one of the principal measures that would ensure the lifting of the beef ban?

Dr. Cunningham: I emphasise that the inquiry to be conducted by Lord Justice Phillips will be politically impartial. The nature of the proceedings will be determined by him. As for my hon. Friend's comments about a cattle traceability scheme, in that and other regards I agree that the previous Administration's approach was woefully inadequate and slow, as was their approach to the selective cull. I am pleased to say that the cattle traceability scheme will be located in my hon. Friend's constituency of Workington. It will create more than 260 jobs and it will be operational in the early part of next year.
In respect of the selective cull, when we took over, the previous Administration had identified and culled 2,000 cattle. In the seven months that we have been in government, we have increased that total to more than 50,000. That represents the difference in approach.

Mr. Roger Gale: Last week, I tabled a priority written question asking how much the United Kingdom had saved since the Fontainebleau agreement in payments to the European Union. As is the custom with the Government, that priority question has not been answered, but I understand that the figure is about £21.5 billion. That money was saved, at least in part, at the expense of the farmers' insurance policy under the agri-monetary compensation scheme. Instead of giving farmers 10 per cent. of what is, in fact, their own money, why does the Minister not give them what they need—5 per cent. of what we have saved?

Dr. Cunningham: That is just another plea for more and more public expenditure, with no account taken of how that money would be provided. What the hon. Gentleman says is patently absurd.

Mr. Tim Collins: Can the Minister assure the House that the £85 million to which he has referred is entirely additional to his Department's existing public expenditure survey line and that there will be no parallel reductions in his PES line elsewhere either in this year or in future years?

Dr. Cunningham: This is additional funding.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Given the catastrophic fall in farm incomes, which the Minister has accepted, and the fact that, as the Minister would agree, most farmers are concerned not so much with global amounts as with how much is available to them at their farm gate to get them through the next year, has he conducted any research on how much money, on average, will be available to individual lowland beef farmers, given that most of his support will go to hill farmers?
If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to answer that question today, will he accept that many might well come to conclusion that the sum for each individual farm will be very modest indeed?

Dr. Cunningham: Speaking from memory, I think that the answer is about 30 per cent. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the fact that a significant proportion of the aid will go to those with suckler herds in the lowlands as well as in less-favoured areas.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Is the Minister able to understand why my farmers in Ribble Valley will be very angry at his statement? In one part of that statement, he said that farmers will get a one-off payment of £85 million, but, next year, they will face lifetime extra costs that will exceed that amount. Does he understand that, next year, they will face increased costs for which that money will not compensate? Does he appreciate that all the farming industry has been hit sideways, including the ancillary industries that rely on farming? The rural economy has had the wind knocked out of its sails because of his announcement today. The bleak prospect in 1998 is of many farmers going out of business involuntarily because the banks will call in their loans.

Dr. Cunningham: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman apparently takes no account of the fact that the problems with the rural communities and the rural economy, as well with agriculture, are in large measure due to the 18 years of Conservative rule. That was made manifest by the electors on 1 May when they drove out Conservative Members of Parliament from so many rural areas because they believed that those Members' policies had failed them.
What I understand about beef, agriculture or any industry in the United Kingdom economy is that, if it can be sustained only by more and more subsidy, it has no long-term prospect of viability. That is not the way forward.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the Minister share with me the disappointment of my constituency farmers, especially beef farmers in the south-eastern quarter of Leicestershire, that, although until now he had

done nothing to apply to Europe for agri-monetary compensation—today we have been offered just a small proportion of the total available—up until now our farmers have had to pay through their own taxation for the agri-monetary compensation paid to the farmers of other European Union countries? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he has applied for such a little amount on this occasion?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes. I have already said that a total of £77 million was available for the beef sector. I am applying for £60 million of it, added to which will be £25 million of hill livestock compensatory allowances. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why we, as taxpayers, contribute to the funding of the European Union. The answer is that we are members of it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Thank you. That is the end of the statement. We must get back to the main business. I call—

Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have already made my views known about the enormous cost of calling Parliament—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked a lengthy question on the statement and I hope that he is not trying to extend the time given to it. It went on for an hour and a half and many of his colleagues have been disappointed because I was unable to call them. I hope that his point of order is one with which I can deal.

Mr. Evans: Yes. I hope so. The House of Commons is sitting for one day this week, obviously at an enormous cost—perhaps £50,000 in Members' travelling expenses for calling them back. A large amount of fresh food has been brought into the House today which may not be put to use in the next two weeks. Will you use your good guidance to ensure that no food is thrown away and that any left over is given to hostels for the homeless or other people?

Madam Speaker: That was barely a point of order for me. We have a superb organisation in the House, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it has not brought in too much food.

Orders of the Day — School Standards and Framework Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Don Foster: Madam Deputy Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Madam Speaker."'] Sorry, Madam Speaker—I do apologise. It is so nice to see you in the Chamber at this stage in a debate.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not being very helpful to himself; I think that he had better start again and get it right.

Mr. Foster: I am most grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to wish you a very happy Christmas.
I should like to make it absolutely clear that we shall be voting with the Government this evening to give the Bill a Second Reading. We believe that it is an important Bill that contains many important and exciting ideas that will be responsible for levering up standards in our schools; they are ideas that deserve our full support. Just as I congratulate the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what I suppose, in "Yes, Minister" terminology, may be described as his brave and outspoken attack on those who seek to erode support for the disabled, I also congratulate him on introducing the Bill.
However, in supporting the Bill's Second Reading, I hope that my action will not be interpreted as uncritical acceptance of all aspects of the Bill as currently drafted. While we enthusiastically endorse some, indeed many, of the proposals, we believe that others are misguided or, at least, in need of significant revision in Committee. A few of the proposals, not least those in relation to the proposed framework for schools, are downright harmful to the education service and should be dropped altogether.
In summary, perhaps we could describe the Bill as the good, the bad and the ugly. I am sure that the Secretary of State will understand if I concentrate this evening on those aspects of the Bill about which we have concerns. But in doing so, I would not want to obscure our genuine delight in the Bill's overall tone, its emphasis on partnership and co-operation and its plans to reduce class size, introduce baseline assessment, establish education action zones, give local education authorities a statutory role in raising standards in their schools and, particularly, ensure once and for all that we have seen the back of nursery vouchers, which are to be replaced with sensible plans to expand the provision of high-quality early years education.
Before I turn to some specific proposals, there is one general point of concern on which I wish to touch. Both Liberal Democrats and the Labour party vociferously complained about the way in which, under the Conservatives, each successive Education Act further increased the power of the Secretary of State, who was given nearly 500 additional powers in the Education Reform Act 1988 alone. It is therefore somewhat of a surprise to discover that, once in office, the Labour party is continuing the trend; for this Bill is also a centralising Bill. It contains numerous clauses under which the Secretary of State is to issue regulations, guidance or codes of conduct. I have not had the opportunity to carry

out a full analysis, but on my current estimate, the Secretary of State's additional powers range between 70 and 100.
The Liberal Democrats believe that it is the job of central Government to establish the framework and provide the resources, then to allow those on the ground—not least the professional teachers—to get on with the job. Of course, to do so they need additional resources—the tools to do the job, including books, equipment and decent buildings in which to work. In that sense, I agreed with the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), when he called for more money, although he has a huge cheek to do so. He must be suffering from chronic amnesia, for he has forgotten that, over 18 years, the Conservative Government starved our schools of resources. One thing that those on the ground do not need is what the Secretary of State's senior adviser, Mr. Michael Barber, recently recommended, when he talked of the
unrelenting pressure from the centre".
I shall now turn to some specific aspects of the Bill. In doing so, I shall inevitably have to omit some points that I should like to have raised in detail, had I had more time. My questions include: why are the Government so keen to reintroduce nutritional standards for schools, but have not yet taken the opportunity to reintroduce minimum space standards for schools? Why have they not sought a more sensible approach to accountability arrangements for governing bodies? Why are they continuing with the system of the annual governors' meeting for parents, with a handful of governors meeting late on a wet Thursday night and sitting on undersized chairs? Why have they not sought a more sensible approach? Why have they rightly added a clause to prohibit corporal punishment on pupils for whom nursery education is provided or supported by the LEA, but failed to extend that ban to cover pupils in privately run nursery provision? In particular, why have they not used the Bill as an opportunity to overturn the damaging effects of the Greenwich judgment on school admission policies?
We fully support the plans to reintroduce maximum class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds—a measure that will reverse a decision made by a previous Labour Government. We nevertheless believe that the plans could be more ambitious. We must remember that there are 480,000 five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of more than 30, but there are about 780,000 older primary pupils who suffer from the same problem and whose education is similarly damaged. Surely, therefore, we should be seeking to reduce class sizes for all primary school pupils—infant and junior. We shall be seeking to move an amendment to that effect.
We recognise the costs and other implications of what we seek to achieve. I do not believe that the Government have fully appreciated the implications of their own proposals. There are three specific problems. First, insufficient money will be released from the abandonment of the assisted places scheme to pay for the large number of additional teachers and classrooms required. I have seen the Government's cost implications and estimates in the financial memorandum to the Bill, and I believe that they are whistling in the dark.
Secondly, it is by no means clear that, even if the additional funds are made available, there will be sufficient teachers available. I am sad to say that teachers


are leaving the profession in droves: 20,000 have left in the past 12 months. On the other side of the coin, we know that fewer and fewer quality candidates are being recruited to start training to enter the profession.
Thirdly, I am genuinely concerned that there may be insufficient flexibility in the approach to class size reduction to take account of local circumstances. We shall still need to know how the Government expect a local education authority to deal with the arrival of the 31st child of a particular age group, hoping to attend a small village school. Will he be sent a long distance to another school to meet the requirements of the class size ban, or will there be some flexibility?
When the Minister for School Standards responds, will he say, given his understandable desire to reduce class sizes, what he will do in terms of schools, particularly small schools, that will be using non-qualified teachers—not least those who are in their probationary year or those who are training?
I very much support the Government's plans to involve local education authorities in their effort to raise standards, but more details will be needed. In the White Paper we read:
If we are to hold LEAs to account for their performance, we owe it to them to ensure that they have a clear job description".
But, sadly, the Bill does not provide that clear job description. It does not even provide a list of the functions that an LEA will be expected to perform and to be funded for under the new financial arrangements. Those are clearly matters for the Committee to consider, and I look forward to receiving more information than is provided in the Bill.
On the subject of LEAs, I have two more points to raise. First, if LEAs are to be given the crucial role of raising standards in their schools, it is strange that their involvement in the appointment of head teachers is to be so severely diminished. After all, all the research shows that one of the most crucial factors in a school's success or failure is the skill, expertise and talents of the head teacher. Although it is right that governors should take the final decision, it is important that LEAs, which are to be intimately involved in ensuring success in individual schools, should have a role to play in headship appointment that is greater than that which is currently envisaged.
Secondly, although I accept and welcome the Secretary of State's decision to return to local level more powers to determine school reorganisation, I am unconvinced by the proposed means of doing so. The Bill envisages the establishment of school organisation committees, yet it is the LEA that is constitutionally responsible for securing the supply of school places. Therefore, decisions should rest with the elected LEA, not with a separate unelected body that does not even have to meet the financial or other consequences of its decisions. If school organisation committees are to be established, they should have no more than an advisory function.
Similarly, I am concerned about the role of the adjudicator in determining appeals in respect of reorganisation plans. The role should be like that of an ombudsman—limited to determining whether there is proper consultation and whether the decision is legal.

It would be wholly wrong for the adjudicator to be given power, as appears to be envisaged, to take an alternative view on policy.
In respect of education action zones, the main difference between myself and the Government is simple: they believe that education action zones are a good thing, whereas I believe that they are a phenomenally good thing. They are one of the most exciting aspects of the Bill. They will bring meaning to the concept of partnership and could ensure a real impetus to drive up standards. They will provide something that is currently missing from our education system—the ability for professionals at local level to experiment and share best practice.
I hope that almost every LEA will lobby for the establishment of a zone in its area. I am aware of the problems, and the right hon. Member for Charnwood raised some of them—for example, the problem of so-called boundary effects, with differential funding of schools on either side of the boundary. I am also aware of concerns about the possibility of opting out of national pay arrangements. However, those problems can be overcome.
There are other issues that require greater clarification—for example, which powers will individual school governors be allowed to hand over to the forum? How will the work of forums be co-ordinated with other initiatives, such as early excellence centres, health action zones and regeneration initiatives? Perhaps most important, how will funding be arranged? After all, if a zone is to run for three to five years, it would be wholly wrong and almost impossible for it to operate if it has to stick with a process of annual bidding for funding.
May I urge the Minister to make one specific change to the policy, which is to include LEA representatives in education action zone forums? When the Secretary of State launched his education action zone proposals on 15 April this year, I read with interest that
These pilots will be planned and delivered by partnerships between business, schools and LEAs".
I do not believe that the Secretary of State can have changed his mind in such a short time, so I must assume that the absence of LEA representation on the forums is a mistake and one that I hope will be shortly rectified.
I described the Bill as the good, the bad and the ugly, and I turn now to what I believe to be the ugly—those aspects of the Bill that deal with the framework for schools and with selection. We all remember that, long before the election, the Labour party rightly urged us all to concentrate on standards and not on structures; but, as the right hon. Member for Charnwood said, because such a major part of the Bill is devoted to structures, the Government themselves are forcing our attention on to structures and away from standards. I have three brief points to make in that respect.
In opposition, the Labour party joined the Liberal Democrats in combined opposition to grant- maintained status. It is a great pity that, in government, the Labour party is appeasing GM schools. There is no justification for the establishment of foundation schools. GM schools could and should be returned to the LEA framework. It cannot be argued, as some Labour Members have done, that there is no difference in effect between community and foundation schools; if that were true, there would be no need for a separate status.
The only reason for the establishment of foundation schools is as a sop to those relatively few parents who supported GM status. What is bizarre is that the Government are taking this step at a time when there is little enthusiasm for foundation status.

Mr. Dafis: It is especially bizarre that the legislation will create an entire category for, in Wales, a total of 17 schools out of 3,000.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am glad that he shares my view that the measure is bizarre. I am sure that he will share my delight at the likelihood of the Roman Catholic diocesan education authorities advising their current GM schools to avoid foundation status, and the possibility of the Church of England authorities following suit.
With the exception of the few parents I mentioned, perhaps the only real excitement about foundation status comes from those consultants who are rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of all the extra business they hope to attract. The Minister may already be aware of organisations such as the Centre for Education Management Ltd., which runs foundation school conferences aimed specifically at
the substantial number of county schools across the country who are affected by local government reorganisation and a potential deterioration of service.
It is quite clear that that organisation knows something about the benefits of foundation status that, so far, I have missed.

Mr. McLoughlin: Why does the hon. Gentleman put so much faith in local education authorities, which can hold back so much money from schools, whereas GM schools receive their money directly?

Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman is so keen on that approach, I am surprised that he will be trooping through the Lobby against the Second Reading of the Bill. As he will know, the Bill contains the plans for a whole new financial settlement, which will make clear the respective jobs, responsibilities and funding of schools and local education authorities. Given the view he has expressed, I am sure that he will change his mind and join us in the Aye Lobby later tonight.
We know that there is little support for foundation status among local education authorities. The Minister knows the figures—he gave them to me in a written reply, and I will remind him what he wrote:
Some 70 per cent. of LEAs raised concerns about foundation school category, of which some two thirds are Labour-controlled authorities."—[Official Report, 17 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 29.]
The Minister knows that there is no need and no desire for the provisions in this part of the Bill, and that they should be dropped.
There has been one significant change that has occurred between the White Paper and the Bill that no one can fathom. In the Bill, we read about the allocation of grant-maintained special schools to the category of foundation special schools, but such an option was effectively ruled out in the White Paper. Even more recently, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), produced her extremely good Green Paper

on special educational needs, in which the Government stated that they were against foundation status for special schools because
of the importance we attach to the place of special schools in a unified service supporting greater inclusion.
There has been a sudden and dramatic U-turn on the part of the Government, so it would appear that 21 GM special schools have a significantly greater influence on the Government than the majority of LEAs, including Labour-controlled ones, whose views have fallen on deaf ears.
Finally, I shall discuss grammar schools and selection. I welcome the fact that the Government are giving an opportunity at local level for reconsideration of grammar school status, but I believe that the mechanism that they propose, with a cumbersome, bureaucratic, ballot system, is wrong, and that it would be far better for the decision to be left, after consultation, to the LEAs.
Even more bizarrely, we are witnessing another U-turn on the issue of partial selection. In his 1995 Labour party conference speech, the present Secretary of State said:
Watch my lips: no selection by exams or interview under Labour.
Yet what do we find in the Bill? The Government accept no new introduction of partial selection by ability, but existing arrangements can remain unless there is both a challenge and a decision by the adjudicator that it must end. That gives no guarantee that all existing partial selection would end—yet that was promised, and that is what should be delivered.
I have been obliged to focus on the bits of the Bill about which we are concerned, but there are many good bits, measures that we believe will help to achieve what we all seek: the raising of standards in our schools and the establishment of an education service that delivers excellence for all. We shall work in Committee to change some aspects of the Bill, but the Government can be assured of our support for the main thrust of the Bill. Therefore we shall support the Second Reading tonight.

Several hon. Members: rose-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As it has been some time since the debate started, before I call the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) I remind the House that Madam Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall keep my comments brief.
I very much welcome the School Standards and Framework Bill, because of the need to tackle the low educational achievement in my constituency. I shall focus on those problems in my speech.
My local authority is taking steps to tackle those problems in a five-year educational plan, which I shall refer to if time permits. Some of the problems that have occurred in my constituency are a direct result of the previous Government's policies. One of their policies was to close down the major employer, the coal industry, and another was to starve my local authority of the resources that it required to maintain local government services.
The local authority has tried to re-industrialise the borough, but one reason why we have not made significant progress in that regard is the low educational achievement in our schools. Employers are discouraged from investing in the Barnsley area because of the low level of achievement and, obviously, they would not want their children to attend school in an area that does not do as well as other areas.

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Illsley: No; there is no time.
In my constituency, there is a culture of low achievement and low aspirations. Schoolchildren feel that achieving qualifications is pointless because of a shortage of employment opportunities after they leave school. Worse, some teachers feel the same. They think that it is pointless to try to teach schoolchildren to achieve GCSE qualifications because of the culture of low achievement and low aspirations.
I shall mention some of the problems that exist in my constituency and I shall refer to the White Paper, "Excellence in Schools", which refers to the problems of changes in the nature of employment, which have led to educational changes.
Until a few years ago, the major employer in my constituency was the coal industry. Although the industry brought benefits of stability, long-term, relatively well-paid jobs, and educational facilities—including apprenticeships, day release courses and educational opportunities through industry—it also brought problems. There was a reliance on a single industry, and a culture of low achievement and low aspiration resulted. People did not aspire beyond working in that industry.
As a result of the closure of the coal industry a few years ago, employment in my constituency fell by 19 per cent. between 1981 and 1991. Coopers and Lybrand has estimated that to reach the national average level of employment we would need to create 19,000 jobs in the constituency by 2001—a practically impossible task, made more difficult by low educational achievement and the low aspirations of the community. Gross domestic product per head in South Yorkshire is low, at 76 per cent., well below the national average, which causes problems.
That brings me to the figures for educational attainment in my constituency. Despite recent improvements, only 28 per cent. of Barnsley pupils obtain five or more A to C grades at GCSE. The national average, which is itself low, is 44 per cent.
Other local problems include high and rising crime. In 1979, crime in Barnsley was 25 per cent. below the national average; by 1994, it was 13 per cent. above it. Many people receive council tax benefits or have long-term debilitating injuries or illness. Those are the problems that have caused the culture of low achievement.
In 1989 in Barnsley, on average 15 per cent. of children gained five or more A to C passes at GCSE. In 1995, the figure was 28 per cent. In 1996 it was 28.3 per cent., compared to a national average of 44 per cent.
Barnsley pupils do not reach the national average level of attainment at any stage at which they are tested. At key stage 1, we score 75 per cent. compared with a national average of 79. At age 14, we score 46 per cent. compared with a national average of 57 and at GCSE we score 28 per cent.
I fully support the Bill, because those low achievement levels must be tackled. I agree entirely with the passage in the White Paper "Excellence in Schools":
One of the most powerful underlying reasons for low performance in our schools has been low expectations which have allowed poor quality teaching to continue unchallenged. Too many teachers, parents and pupils have come to accept a ceiling on achievement which is far below what is possible.
That exactly sums up the problem in my constituency.
I especially welcome the proposals to introduce educational development plans, but I am disappointed that the duty on the local education authority to agree targets with schools has been dropped. Targets would have been welcome in the situation that exists in my constituency.
As I said, my local authority has embarked on a plan to improve educational standards, which draws on much that is in the White Paper and the Bill. However, although the local education authority is trying to increase standards and improve pupils' performance it is coming up against teachers who do not accept that GCSEs are a standard—who do not accept that they are the be-all and end-all of education. Perhaps they are not, but in my constituency the education system is failing children because their inability to achieve qualifications prevents them from passing into further and higher education or into decent jobs.
I wish that the Minister would address that problem and enable local education authorities to impose standards or targets on schools, especially in areas such as mine. The teachers' view is that their job is to produce well-rounded individuals, as the head teachers put it, instead of enabling pupils to gain qualifications.
I shall now mention specialist schools. A school in my constituency, Priory school, aspires to specialise in sport. Unfortunately, to do so it must raise about £100,000, and in an area such as mine that money is very difficult to obtain, although the school is committed, with a forward-thinking head teacher and excellent staff. I ask the Minister to consider whether support might be given to schools such as that, to kick-start the process of achieving specialist status.
The Barnsley education partnership is an excellent venture. It uses partnership and collaboration with the local colleges, such as Northern college and Bretton college, with the local universities, the Government office for Yorkshire and the Humber, the Barnsley Business Education Partnership, the health authority, the police, the trades union council, the voluntary sector, the Churches, the chamber of commerce and many more. The aim is to raise aspirations, and to improve the culture of education.
We have a problem, however. Despite an increase of more than £4 million in our standard spending assessment this year—notionally—the authority is still £2.5 million short, in cash terms, of money to spend on education. I shall be meeting local government Ministers next week to try to secure funds from other sources. It is obvious that, if we are to improve


standards, implement the Bill and maintain the plan on which the local authority has embarked, we shall need more resources. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will support Barnsley's case.

7 pm

Mr. David Curry: I shall confine myself to two aspects of the Bill. The first is the education action zone; the second is parental ballots, and the future of grammar schools.
I feel that education action zones should be effectively integrated in wider regeneration programmes, especially in inner cities. We know from our experience of regeneration that dealing with only one aspect of deprivation does not work. It is necessary to deal with housing, training, the environment, policing, law and order, and job availability. We have learnt that the issue must be dealt with in the round. Our main problem was involving educational institutions. I am not talking about those in charge of training; that was easy enough. I am talking about actually getting down to the schools. The problem was partly due to the Department's marked reluctance to become involved in the programmes.
We know why the problems are so deep-rooted in some inner-city primary schools. My father was headmaster of a primary school that was within site of Armley gaol in Leeds for many years, and our family therefore experienced those problems in a very practical way. We knew about the low expectations of many teaching staff, we knew about the culture of non-achievement, and we knew how desperate some family backgrounds were when all the bad elements were combined. There is much to be said for education action zones as a concept, but they must be integrated into the wider regeneration programme.
The question is, how is that to be achieved at a time when the regeneration programmes themselves are about to undergo significant change? First, the new regional development agencies are intended to take over the management of the programmes; secondly, the Government are reputed to be toying with the idea of moving to a different concept of regeneration—the French idea of "contrats de ville"—rather than using the single regeneration budget, which is applicable throughout the country. "Contrats de ville" are contracts between the centre and urban areas, and do not have universal coverage.
It is crucial that there should be no dislocation. Will the education action zones be urged to apply for regeneration funds, or a replacement? Will they be part of a wider partnership—a real partnership, with the zones performing one of the functions that are required? What measures will the Government take to ensure that the concept of education action zones is part of the broader regeneration effort?
As our experience tells us, the concept will not work if the Government do not take such measures; but I hope very much that it will work. We shall start putting the inner cities right when we start putting primary schools right, and changing the attitudes of parents, staff and local people, who must have ownership of the schemes.
My second worry is about the future of grammar schools, which affects my constituency. North Yorkshire has a countywide selective system. I need to know what the Government intend for ballots. Who will vote? Will it

be parents of children at primary schools, which are the feeder schools? Will it be "one vote, one child", or "one vote, one family"? Will parents of children at secondary schools have a vote? Will voting be confined to the catchment areas of the schools involved, or are we talking about the education authorities as a whole?
Let me explain why that matters by referring to my old school, Ripon grammar school. When I was at that school, it was not part of the educational elite: passing Latin O-level was regarded as a singular achievement. Ripon grammar school draws from 14 primary schools in its catchment area. The most pupils it takes from those schools is 18; the fewest is one; quite often, it takes one or two. It also draws from 11 primary schools outside its catchment area, often taking one or two pupils. In addition, it draws from eight independent primary schools—between one and four pupils—and it happens to be a boarding school as well.
In those circumstances, who will have a vote? Will all the parents who are sending one child a year to a primary school have a vote? Will parents outside the catchment area have a vote?
Ripon grammar school is outstanding. It is at the top of the league tables—as it ought to be: North Yorkshire has a selective system, and we do not have the massive social problems that characterise more urban areas. If we cannot do well, we clearly are not trying.
Ever since I was brought up in Ripon, there have been arguments between the grammar school, which I attended and which happens to be on one side of the road, and the secondary modern on the other side of the road—now called Ripon city school—where my father taught. There has been a flight of pupils to Boroughbridge, Harrogate and other areas, because of the problems that are perceived to exist in the city school.
The city school, however, is now making enormous strides. For the last couple of years, it has had a new headmaster, Mr. Paul Lowery, who has said, "I am not interested in this lack of expectation. I am not interested in assuming that these kids are only good enough to work as check-out operatives in multiple retail stores. I think that they can do something, and I look forward to the school's having a graduate society."
The school now has a sixth form, and an extensive community education programme. It intends to apply for special status as a technology school. When the application is submitted, I shall be lobbying the Minister. Numbers are going up at the school, and its results are improving, because attitudes and expectations have changed. The last thing it needs is the upheaval of reorganisation.
It would help if the North Yorkshire education authority stopped using the city school—because it had spare places; because it experienced a period of decline—as a place in which to put kids who have had problems in all the other schools: as a collective for local difficulties.
Every time Mr. Lowery tries to pull the school up another notch, he experiences the dislocation caused by people being dropped on him throughout the school year by the LEA. It would be enormously helpful to him if that stopped, and he was given a real opportunity to attack some of the school's problems. He is managing to do that, however: examination results have improved vastly, as has the whole atmosphere in the school. That happened because someone said, "It can be done," rather than, "I do not think that it can be done."
The sensible thing for Ripon to do is develop twin schools with different but equal excellence, able to work together when that is in the best interests of the children. One school may be more academically inclined and the other more vocationally inclined, but children should be able to cross the road when the courses are mixed in order to get the best from both schools.
I know that both Mr. Lowery—headmaster of the city school—and Mr. Alan Jones, headmaster of the grammar school, subscribe to that vision of the future of education in Ripon, and that neither thinks that it would be good for them or their schools if we embarked on another period of debate about the structure. That argument has plagued Ripon for generations, and those years of guerrilla warfare—all the uncertainty, bitterness and division that happen in a small community like Ripon—must end. A full stop must be written at the end of those paragraphs.
South Craven school in my constituency is at the opposite extreme. It is probably the biggest all-in comprehensive in North Yorkshire. It is an excellent school, but it takes literally hundreds of children from Bradford metropolitan authority. We can see why people are fleeing from that authority, but, in fact, many children go there by choice. Will the parents have a say in any ballot on the future of education in North Yorkshire, which is vital to them?
If there are ballots, what will be the role of the local education authority? I hope that it will be told to have no role at all. I do not want the LEA to influence the ballot; I do not want it to use its resources to send circulars to all the parents, and try to secure one or other result. We have seen that happen in the past. Local education authorities should be ready to implement what parents decide is right for them. I hope that the Government will be on guard against that, and against unrepresentative pressure groups that always emerge on such occasions.
Will the Minister contemplate change only when it is clear both that the opinion of all parents concerned is in favour, and that there are undisputable educational advantages to be gained from reorganisation? Change too often takes place as a result of a sustained third of dislocation, community unease and guerrilla war in local communities. If we can put an end to that, we can do education a great service.
I trust the Minister's good will. He wants to get the argument settled, as most people do. It would help if he would spell that out tonight.

Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). I welcome this measure—yet another manifesto commitment fulfilled. When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill to the House, he had every reason to be proud. It is landmark legislation, the intention of which approximates the achievements of the Education Act 1944.
I welcome the references to maximum class sizes, the safeguarding of the religious ethic, school meals, nutritional standards and work-related learning, among other provisions. I particularly welcome the strengthening of ministerial powers. So far as I can see, the Bill is a

centralising measure. The able Minister for School Standards now has his hands on the levers of power in an unprecedented way—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like it, but that is the Bill's long-term impact. Some LEAs, many of them Conservative, have failed both pupils and schools. If the Minister wants to grip them firmly by the throat, he now has the power to do so.
If giving unprecedented strong powers to the schools Minister helps to improve failing schools, and helps vulnerable pupils to achieve their full potential, so be it. If it livens up errant LEAs, so much the better.
I want the measure to help poor children from homes that lack some aspects of life that we would like them to have. Too many children grow up on decrepit, aging, featureless council estates. To put it bluntly, at this time of year their homes are not warm; their diet is suspect; and the streets that surround their homes are haunted by vandals who give a bad example to young schoolchildren. There is too much shabbiness and squalor, and there is often a drugs culture.
In those neighbourhoods and on those estates, many of which exist throughout the land, there are break-ins and intimidation by yobbish gangs. On some of those streets where youngsters go daily to school, there are more jobless than employed people. In those localities, marriages and partnerships simply fall apart, which results in a weakened social fabric.
Many youngsters experience a series of temporary, sometimes resident fathers. Children stay up late at night and often watch unacceptable videos at a late hour. That is no preparation for school the next day. Do they get a reasonable breakfast? Are they adequately dressed for the cold? Too often, school is the only place where children are told what is right and what is wrong, because the attitude of some parents—perhaps many—towards their young children is irresponsible.
The Bill is overdue. I hope that it will enhance and develop the lives of tens of thousands of children who live in poverty, cold, neglect and ignorance. Any ubiquitous and observant Member of Parliament will remain haunted by the evidence of children growing up in areas of social breakdown, which exist throughout the land. The problem I define is growing worse by the month. I hope that the Bill will give a better deal to many young children.
Social justice is one of the Government's prime objectives, and the Bill draws inspiration from the need for social justice.

Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: No, I cannot give way, as my speech is limited to 10 minutes. I mean no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, who might know my area and have an insight into the problems there.
Children should be the first recipients of social justice, but many of them miss out hopelessly and often. This historic Bill will enhance the lives and prospects of countless thousands of children, but it is a tall order for me even to hope for that objective, which is why I welcome the social exclusion unit and the impact which I expect it will have on schooling. The unit and the Bill will together make inroads into the scandalous conditions in which many children live and learn. With the Prime Minister at the helm, good will come of the unit's work.
The social exclusion unit's analysis of the worst housing estates must be crucial, and I look forward to its report and to the action that it will propose between Government Departments. Many primary and comprehensive schools are located within, or on the edge of, vast housing estates. The huge social problems march straight into the neighbourhood schools, and teachers therefore must cease to be professors of knowledge and face up to everyday school emergencies as social workers, mothers, fathers, nurses and comforters.
I therefore make a cautionary plea to the Government. Teachers groan as legislation follows legislation. They feel overwhelmed by paper and threatened by ceaseless inspections and the publicity about the consequential disclosure of the inspector's findings. The demands about which they complain are Conservative Government demands, but this Bill will ask even more of the profession. Even more pressure will therefore be put on teachers, who already have very low morale. We must take account of that.
Headmasters must now be accountants, publicists, marketing directors, clerks of works, politicians and diplomats. The pressure on headmasters grows and grows, and too many of them seek an early exit from their responsibilities. I urge the Government to take that into account.
This is a good Bill, and I want it implemented speedily. Above all, I hope that it will help children from poor homes.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: This is the time of magic in the theatre. Children will be queueing to see people flying without wires and generally performing all kinds of magical tricks. There is an assumption in this debate that, if only we had the best possible Act of Parliament, all kinds of terrible things would cease to be, and children would instantly warm to their school, parents would take their responsibilities seriously, teachers would enjoy their jobs, and before you could say Jack Robinson—

Mr. Robert Key: Geoffrey Robinson.

Mr. Rowe: —or even Geoffrey Robinson, all the problems would be solved.
Coming from Kent, I have strong reservations about the Bill. It is true that Kent, like areas that are wholly comprehensive, has some under-performing schools, but some of the under-performing schools have already improved enormously as a result of going grant-maintained. I echo the experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). One of my local schools that took itself out of the local education authority's control has now created a sixth form which it was being denied, and this year for the first time has pupils going to Oxford and Cambridge.
Chance is to be taken away. Our county has an extraordinarily rich tradition of grammar schools, and they are by and large centres of excellence. Good education is a strangely delicate plant, which blossoms unpredictably and shrivels equally unpredictably. Experience suggests that it has most chance of continuous success where there are communities with a long history

of academic excellence. To undermine such communities through Act of Parliament, even if that is on a tendentious ballot, would not be wise.
I welcome the Bill's approval of centres of aptitude, but I bitterly regret its hostility to grant-maintained and grammar schools. In view of earlier exchanges, it is worth recalling that Kent has this time passed on every penny of the extra money that has been handed out to schools, in stark contrast to the Lib-Lab pact, the predecessor of the Conservative Administration, which kept £10 million out of £16 million.
New Labour should be proud of the Bill. It features at least two of new Labour's central beliefs: first, in central control—the man in Whitehall knows best; and secondly, that the best way to deal with people's failings is to punish them. "Zero tolerance" and "hit squads" are the key phrases here.
I understand. It is a natural reaction to the shocking waste of young people, which is still a feature of our education system. Eleven years of compulsory attendance under threat of penal sanctions should lead to delivery of something worth having, or the penal sanctions should be scrapped.
If I buy a duff product in a shop, I can get my investment back. If I buy a house on a false prospectus, I can get redress. If, under legal sanction, I send my child to a school which delivers to the child nothing of value, I have no redress at all. Is it not time to have a proper, enforceable contract with schools, or no doubt with the Secretary of State, if the Bill is passed in its present form?
The contract with parents may help some families and some schools in some areas, but it is no substitute for a properly enforceable contract whereby the school promises to deliver certain things, the parents and the child promise in return to make themselves available in the appropriate ways, and if nothing worth having is delivered at the end, there should be some redress.
I have some sympathy with ministerial impatience, but I am astonished at how little the Secretary of State said about the central element in all education—teachers. Teachers need a new deal. The world of any teacher who has been in the profession for more than 20 years has changed beyond recognition. That is a result not just of new technology, with which we must all come to terms, but of an entirely new social environment.
In many schools, the majority of pupils come from broken homes, and for many of those children, being dropped at the school gates may be no opportunity, but may be seen rather as another rejection. Huge numbers of pupils come to school with few or no social skills, no self-discipline, and no respect for any adult, including the teacher.
With every new social problem handed to teachers has come a further restriction on their traditional systems of control, yet most teachers have been left to handle these difficult developments with little or no serious support. As a result, they have too often low self-confidence and low expectations of their charges. It is therefore not surprising how hard many of them find it, for example, to welcome volunteer help or to deploy it if they get it.
We know from research that the most effective way of cutting truancy is by teaching in a way that holds the interest of pupils. The Government would do better to concentrate on retraining current teachers and improving


the training of aspirant teachers than to threaten them with hit squads and other punitive instruments. None of us can feel content with the present situation—a shortfall last year of more than 2,000 entering initial teacher training, one third of those who successfully completed initial teacher training in 1995 not being employed as teachers, and 10,200 leaving the profession for other employment in 1995–96.
Instead of yet again messing about with structure, including destroying proven successful structures, why do not the new Labour Government concentrate on the most valuable resource at their disposal—the teachers? It is 15 years since I came within an ace of establishing with private finance the first distance staff college for head teachers. I still believe that to take a leaf out of the armed services' book and provide a staff college for putative head teachers would be one of the most effective ways of achieving higher standards.
What teachers want more than anything else is other teachers to assist them in improving their standards, not being told how to do it from outside.

Jacqui Smith: rose—

Mr. Rowe: No, I am sorry. With a 10-minute limit, we always lose the enjoyable experience of being broken in upon.
What we teach is important, and it is different from what many people think. Recent studies have shown, for example, that pupils find religious education surprisingly enjoyable. They discover for the first time that there is another element to their lives, apart from the purely materialistic.
I believe that that is one of the areas in which we should develop our skills. We should also, as I have often said in the House—the Minister knows my views—develop voluntary help in schools much further. Most teachers would welcome the opportunity to extend their grasp through responsible voluntary assistance. Pupils learn faster by teaching other pupils some of the things they need to know—especially subjects such as health education, or how to deal with bullying or racial harassment. There are good examples of that which can work extremely well. If older pupils teach younger pupils, both sides profit enormously.
Finally, we should put a great deal of emphasis on the development of the volunteer involvement of employees of local businesses in schools. Not only does that extend the skills of the volunteers and those they teach, but it involves the businesses in the local school. The more we can draw schools into community involvement, the better.

Mr. John Gunnell: If we must meet in Christmas week, it is just as well that we should consider some glad tidings. The Bill is extremely positive, and I congratulate the Government on their single-minded drive to improve standards in education. I welcome the greater involvement of the local education authorities. After 18 years of the Tories drawing education power to the centre, I am glad that at last some authority is returning to the LEAs.
The Government clearly take seriously the principle of partnership. The Bill draws in schools, teachers, governors, parents, pupils, business, the training and enterprise councils and central Government in raising standards across the board.
We must also bear in mind the fact that the Government are making resources available in order to achieve the class size objective. Resources are important if we are to raise education standards. The Government have allocated nearly an extra £2.5 billion to schools, including £1 billion from the contingency reserve and the new deal for schools from 1998–99, and they will provide another £1.3 billion in grants for school maintenance over the next five years. I think that that is proof of the Government's commitment of resources as well as ideas in their single-minded drive to improve education standards.
With regard to the role of parents as envisaged in the Bill, the Jesuit cliché, "Give me the child at five and I will show you the man"—apart from its one-sided focus on the male of the species and its underrating of the years from zero to four—contains the essential truth that the early years of a child's development play a profound part in determining his or her life chances. I am glad that the Bill recognises, as the Secretary of State said when presenting the White Paper in July, that parents are a child's first teachers. Rather than treating that as a mere truism, the Bill contains concrete ideas for ensuring that parents are more involved in enhancing the life chances of their children from early years, through their school years, until they leave school and, sooner or later, the family home. More than that, the Bill contains concrete mechanisms for involving parents in the success of their child's school, and therefore of the community in which they live.
I shall comment on just two measures. First, I turn to the home-school contract. Leeds local education authority, in common with many others, already promotes parental commitment via home-school contracts. When I consulted parents and teachers in my constituency over the summer to gauge their reaction to the White Paper, they suggested that, while home-school contracts are a good idea, they need more legal strength in order to do the job. Therefore, I am pleased that the Government have chosen to put on the face of the Bill the requirement for parents to sign home-school contracts and for governors to ensure that they do so unless exceptional circumstances apply. However, in time, the Government may wish to consider ensuring that contracts are a condition of admission and that failure to observe the requirements of a home-school contract brings a legal sanction upon the head of the parent or guardian.
The contracts spell out that parents also have the right to expect the school and its teachers to display a minimum of good practice in teaching the pupils, just as the school has a right to expect the co-operation of parents. I would want to avoid any problems associated with legal claims for damages on the basis of a pupil's performance, but I think that we must consider the strength of home-school contracts. In addition, the Bill provides for parent governors in schools. Parents must have a genuinely representative voice on boards of governors, which, together with their presence on LEA committees, will help to cement the partnership that the Bill tries to bring about.
Secondly, the Bill gives various roles to LEAs after 18 years of Conservative hostility to those authorities—it was clear from the way in which the Conservatives


presented their policies during the election campaign that LEAs would have ceased to exist if the Conservatives had won the election. I welcome the participation of LEAs and their commitment to raising standards. That can be seen in several specific ways. It is a matter not just of warm words and pious hopes but of definite proposals to enhance co-operation between schools, schools and LEAs, between LEAs, and with other key community and education stakeholders.
We can see that in the proposals for school organisation committees and in the role that LEAs will play in producing early years development plans and development plans that will apply in each area. LEAs will make a constructive and positive impact on the way in which schools approach the raising of standards: their duty will be to promote higher standards. Ofsted may be brought into a school at the behest of the LEA and emergency teams may be sent in by the Secretary of State when a LEA is judged to have failed. Schools will be required to produce capability procedures for removing teachers who are deemed to be poor performers. Those measures will give LEAs a bigger role in ensuring schools take education standards seriously.
Mention was made today of education action zones, which are another option open to LEAs. That proposal has been broadly welcomed, so I shall not dwell upon it now. Education action zones will be particularly important in deprived areas.
I must also comment on class sizes. It is important that we take class size seriously and that we recognise that it matters. For years, I heard Conservative Education Ministers claiming that there was no evidence that pupil performance improved as class sizes were reduced. The abolition of the assisted places scheme is already releasing money under the standards fund that will be used to help infant schools to realise our class size objective and pledge.
However, we cannot legislate for a change to class sizes of 30 or under for all five, six and seven-year-olds in one fell swoop. According to the House of Commons Library, there are as many as 13,502 classes of 31 pupils or over. Speaking to teachers, I found that they rejected any attempt to force a rigid number upon all infant classes within a short time scale—not through any scepticism that the objective was worth realising, but through concern about over-rigidity of prescriptiveness and resources. That concern is shared widely by teachers and local authority representatives alike.
Thankfully, the class size commitment in the Bill is not too prescriptive. It allows the Secretary of State to set class size targets, but they may be determined according to age within the infant school sector and will, I hope, not follow too tight a timetable. The Bill also allows LEAs to draw up proposals for realising the class size objective, thereby allowing local factors to be taken into consideration. Unless flexibility is introduced into the school appeals system, not only will the ability of schools to achieve the class size objective be undermined, but the distance that some children must travel to school will frustrate attempts to encourage parents to give a commitment to the school beyond securing their child's place at it.
The Bill makes clear that parental preference must not
prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources",

which includes the duty of the LEA to comply with the class size commitment. Given that the Greenwich judgment is still very much in place and that appeals increased by more than 8,500 to 62,900 in the period from 1994–95 to 1995–96, that is good news for schools that are wondering how they can achieve the Government's objective. I also welcome the fact that the Bill states that an LEA's power to direct a school to admit a pupil shall likewise be in accordance with the class size objective and that the school should be a
reasonable distance from the child's home.
The need to encourage parental commitment to schools, and thus to their communities, is inevitably compromised by the right to send children many miles away from home in pursuit of a place that may lie in another LEA area. I am glad that the Government have adopted a flexible approach to the class size question.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I could not disagree more with the first few words of the speech by the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell) when he welcomed the Bill for giving more powers to local education authorities. Looking back on my experiences with my local education authority, I think that any Bill that gives LEAs more power is to be regretted.
We heard the exchanges between the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) earlier today. There is a long-running argument in Derbyshire about the amount of money that central Government have given the county council and, at the end of the day, how much of that money has found its way into schools. I regret that the Bill does not set out a way to ensure that the money that the Government provide, irrespective of party politics, finds its way into schools and not, perhaps, into some of the education authorities' favourite projects.
A long-running dispute between myself and Derbyshire county council involves the subsidy of school meals. The Under-Secretary of State answered one of my parliamentary questions only a few weeks ago. I asked the hon. Lady to provide a list of the amount of subsidy in the form of school meals that was given to the shire counties. It will not surprise the House to know, bearing in mind what I have just said, that, over 10 years, Derbyshire came top of the league in providing the greatest subsidy—and not by short measure, but by a huge amount.
From 1986–87 to 1995–96, Derbyshire provided a subsidy of about £150 million. Over the same period, the neighbouring authority of Staffordshire provided a subsidy of about £64 million. If an authority takes a decision to subsidise school meals, it can do so, but the money cannot be spent twice. If an authority decides to subsidise school meals, the money that is used for that purpose will not be available for education, and it will not be available for schools generally.
I am glad to say that it seems now that Derbyshire county council basically agrees with me. There has recently been industrial action between Unison and the council. The council has been trying to reduce the subsidy for school meals by about £2.6 million. For the first time in 11 years, some of the press releases issued by the county council could have been put out under my own name. One such press release reads:


Figures released by Unison show how much more efficient the Derbyshire service needs to become to bring it into line with services in other neighbouring counties. Last year Nottinghamshire spent £8.51 per head and Leicestershire £6.77 per head on their school meals services, compared with £12.78 per head in Derbyshire.
Councillor Wilcox, chairman of the education committee, said:
What these figures actually demonstrate is the need for our service to become more efficient to protect the future of the service and to make it more attractive to parents and pupils.
The council has also been saying that if money is spent on subsidising school meals, that money will not be available for the education service within the county. I agree with that and I much regret that for 10 years we have had a sterile debate about the level of subsidies provided by the county council for school meals when that money should have been made available for the schools to reduce class sizes.
Unfortunately, because the county council wanted to make a political point, it continued with what I believe was an unrealistic subsidy. Finally, it is having to come to grips with reality. That led to industrial action taking place within the county, which is doing no one any good. It is not doing the school meals service any good, and it is not doing pupils' education any good.
Derbyshire has suffered because it provided a subsidy for school meals that was larger than that of any other shire county. The result has been a diminution of the quality of school buildings and an increase in class sizes. At the same time the council can go on only about the difference in spending and in allocation between Hertfordshire and Derbyshire.
In the past, I have supported the case for a review of the additional cost allowance. In that regard, I welcome the Government's undertaking. The previous Government initiated an independent review, and the result was a solution different from that which I wanted. We shall see in due course the Government's eventual solution to area cost adjustments. I understand from a recent parliamentary answer that it will be some time before the Government see area cost adjustments being changed in any way.
Derbyshire county council seems to rely on the difference in spending between it and Hertfordshire county council. That brings me to the annual capital allowances that were announced by the Government last week. The Minister of State sent us a letter which set out what the allowances would be. Even the new Government have given Hertfordshire about £7.2 million and Derbyshire about £5.8 million. We need to spend money on schools, on reducing class sizes and on ensuring that expansion takes place where it is necessary. There is no difference between any of us on those issues, but Derbyshire argued that it was treated unfairly by the previous Government. By the same token, it would seem that it has been treated unfairly by the Labour Government.
I am concerned about the future of grant-maintained schools, given the terms of the Bill. It is clear from the Bill that the Government are proposing to introduce foundation governors, who will come from the local education authorities, to sit on GM school boards. The Government seem to be forgetting some of the battles that

they encouraged when in opposition between schools that wished to become grant maintained and those that did not. The Under-Secretary of State shakes her head—it would seem that she disagrees with me profoundly. Anyone who was an observer when schools were opting for GM status will be aware of what took place.
I understand that the Minister represents a Birmingham constituency. There were horrendous stories circulating in Birmingham about the lengths to which the authority was prepared to go to try to stop schools becoming grant maintained. There were similar stories about other authorities. It is thought now, however, that there will be sweetness and light and that no malice will be held by local education authorities although they have witnessed battles in the past. I do not believe that. On the contrary, I believe that there is a threat to the future and structure of GM schools.
I remember a school that became grant-maintained in my constituency. There was a large public meeting about a threat to its sixth form. One of the LEA governors said, "I believe that the school should retain its sixth form, but I have been appointed by the LEA and because the authority wants to close the sixth form, that is all right by me, and that is what I shall support." I see that the Government Deputy Chief Whip acknowledging that that is a policy which might find agreement in other areas, but I do not accept that that is the way forward for the structure and future of our schools.
A large education Bill is before us and I regret that Back-Bench Members have only a short time to discuss it. However, that is one of the factors of the parliamentary timetable. Like any large education measure, there are parts of it that are to be welcomed. Sadly, however, I believe that overall the Bill will lead to a diminution of education, especially within schools which have been brave enough to take the GM course. That is my regret.

Ms Margaret Hodge: I suppose that it is fitting, despite the invitations to be elsewhere, that our final debate before the Christmas recess should be on our first priority as a new Government. This allows us to end the calendar year where we started the new term—putting education at the heart of our agenda.
When I was preparing for the debate I looked back at the debate on Second Reading of the previous Government's last, dismal attempts to improve schools. Two issues dominated that debate, and both were irrelevant to the central problems facing us in British schools. First, there was the proposal, led by the then Prime Minister, to have a grammar school in every town, which meant that yet again we focused our energies on structures and not standards, on policies for the privileged few, not those for the nation's many, and on ideology-driven dogma instead of what works.
Secondly, there was the proposition that caning our children would improve discipline. It may be hard to believe that today, but we were having what purported to be a serious debate on education standards and Conservative Members believed that the answer was to legalise the whacking of children in schools. That was not said in a pre-Christmas haze of excess alcohol, nor was it proposed in a debate on April fool's day; although it seemed to be a poor rewrite of an Ealing studio comedy, it simply reflected the Conservative Government in their final hours—utterly bereft of any serious and sensible ideas.
The same attitude was evident when the present Bill was published and given its First Reading. There was obviously a great deal of public interest in the far-reaching proposals that it contained, but where were the Opposition? The shadow Secretary of State, who is not his place, had apparently retreated from Westminster to the country and his deputy refused to appear on several programmes because, apparently, she had not been briefed. Indeed, in one studio the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I were left with an empty chair for the Conservatives because they were unable to find anyone at all to comment on any of the proposals in the Bill. That says it all.
For my part, I believe that the Bill sets out the most radical yet practical agenda for education for a generation. In their first eight months, the Labour Government have produced a raft of measures that will help to create an age of achievement in Britain's schools. It is wonderful to see in the Bill proposals which really focus on education standards and recognise that education is central to our ability to deliver welfare reform and social cohesion—the Government's other two priorities. From nursery education to class sizes, from setting literacy and numeracy targets to introducing home-school contracts, from bringing in assessments for five-year-olds to value-added data on children and schools, from fast-track proposals for bright children to fresh-start proposals for failing schools, from homework and literacy clubs to repairing 10,000 schools by 2002, it is an ambitious programme designed to ensure that every child in every school gets the best opportunity to learn.
I want to comment on two specific proposals. First, the Bill will demand a complete rethink for local education authorities. I strongly support that. In the past, LEAs have intervened, often on a daily basis, in the detailed running of schools. The Bill demands that they change and recognise that the days of the all-powerful interfering LEA are over. LEAs have a new and different task which is vital to our purpose. They must become an integral part of the crusade to raise standards. [Interruption.] Obviously, Opposition Members do not understand the Bill. 6
By preparing an education development plan, LEAs will lead the local drive to promote school improvement. By monitoring schools, they will ensure that targets are met. Where schools are succeeding, LEAs must learn to take a back seat; where schools are failing, they must intervene swiftly and decisively.
All too often, the Opposition have criticised LEAs—and they are doing so again today—but in 18 years they did nothing to tackle their under-performance. The Bill contains clauses which show that the new Labour Government will not tolerate failing LEAs. However, I hope that LEAs will grasp their new role with enthusiasm and view it as an opportunity, not a threat. Indeed, some LEAs, such as Birmingham and Barking and Dagenham, have already begun to show the way. Steering schools to improve their performance rather than running services which schools themselves can run is an enormous challenge. It is a different role, not a diminished role—a crucial role, not a minor role.
There are those in right-wing think tanks who urge that we should abolish LEAs and run education from Whitehall. They are wrong. We cannot effectively run 24,000 schools from Sanctuary buildings, and if we ever abolished LEAs we would have to reinvent them in

another guise. The centre will never have the capacity to monitor sufficiently or intervene appropriately at local level. I say that as a parent and politician whose children were educated mostly under the Inner London Education Authority. Even ILEA was too large and remote to step in early enough to prevent a problem from developing into a crisis in such schools as William Tyndale, Highbury Quadrant or Highbury Grove.
We need the democratic accountability of elected LEAs to provide the partnership, parental involvement and community and business commitment that will help to translate our policies into practice. So the task for Government is to encourage, cajole and insist that LEAs adapt to their new role. Local democracy is about empowering people, not politicians and for the LEA that means acting as the voice for parents and children—for the consumers and not the producers in the education system.
The second proposition on which I wish to comment is the education action zones. The proposals could revolutionise education in deprived and underperforming areas. Disadvantage cannot excuse failure in our schools or low attainment levels for some children, but equally we need to offer schools in deprived areas the means to tackle that disadvantage.
Unlike the Tories, we in the Labour party recognise the problems that social deprivation brings to education and we are committed to addressing them. I hope that the education action zones, with the freedoms that they gain and the resources that they attract, will become hotbeds of innovation and best practice.
Creating a formal structure around a family of schools is good in itself because it encourages sharing of good practice and helps provide the pressure and support to develop the good and deal with the poor. Creating formal partnerships between schools, parents, businesses and other local interests is also good in itself, because schools perform best with the support of their local communities, not detached from them. Releasing schools from some of the constraints in the national curriculum will ensure that literacy and numeracy become the fulcrum on which a broad and balanced curriculum must rest. Providing extra money will enable us to target resources where they are most needed.
Finally, I am delighted that the zones will be able to apply for exemption from teachers' statutory pay and conditions. The recent Select Committee report on teacher supply suggested a range of proposals to raise the quality and increase the number of teachers. Some involve rewarding teachers on performance mobility, not just length of service. We need to test those ideas.
Further, I have long argued that allowing a precious capital resource—our schools—to remain unused for a quarter of the year while teachers are exhausted by cramming too much into the teaching term and, during the long summer holidays, children who need to catch up and keep up with their peers forget what they have learnt, is nonsense. It is a relic of the days when children were expected to help with the harvest and mothers worked only in the home. I hope that experiments will take place in education action zones to challenge those outdated traditions.
The Bill represents a watershed in British education. It is about promoting what works and ensuring fairness. For 18 long years, parents, pupils and teachers have


suffered from a penny-pinching dogma-driven attitude to Britain's schools. Now at last we have a Government who are committed to high standards for all, who rely on common sense and best practice for their policies and who really have made better education their No. 1 priority.

Mr. Robert Key: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), and I congratulate her on a very fine speech. Having crossed swords with the hon. Lady many times when I was local government finance Minister and she was leading delegations to squeeze more money out of me, I must say that her raft of measures is drifting swiftly to the right. It is Christmas week, but her remarks sounded like an early leaked draft of the Queen's Speech. However, I am delighted that the hon. Lady feels that way. There is always room for her on the Opposition side if the Government do not give her a job.
I start by declaring an interest and making a confession. My interest is that I am an associate member of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers—an excellent organisation which I joined in 1967 when I was a professional teacher and continue to support. However, I should like to make it clear to the House that I pay it—it does not pay me.
My confession is that I have read the Bill from cover to cover. Last Thursday, I had occasion to travel on one of Mr. Richard Branson's excellent express trains to Preston and that provided me with a good opportunity to challenge the Bill. It took me the whole journey there to read it and most of the journey back to read the schedules. It was not a great read; nor is it a great Bill. It leaves out quite a lot. For example, it leaves out the whole vexed issue of school transport, which for most schools yields more grief than most educational topics with which schools have to cope. I regret that omission. As a former teacher of 16 years, I should like to be the first Member on either side of the House just to say thank you and a very happy Christmas to our teaching profession.
When I was on the Government Benches, I took years and years of stick from the Labour party because we Conservatives did not send our children to state schools and did not know what we were talking about. We heard that again tonight. It was a delight to hear the outburst of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), which we know really represented what is in the hearts and minds of most Labour Members. We heard the same from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). I thought that when he said that Ministers had at last got schools by the throat, he was articulating something that is deeply felt by the Labour party.
Fifteen years ago, there was conflict between selective and non-selective schools in my constituency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) showed clearly that that period of unhappy dissention has come to an end—certainly in my constituency, where there is huge strength in the diversity of schools. We have comprehensives with and without sixth forms, secondary moderns, special schools, hospital schools, grammar schools, independent schools and a further education college—and that is just for a population of about 100,000. I am proud to say that there are no bad schools in my constituency. I have no difficulty—indeed, I have great pride—in supporting them all.
The Government's blueprint for change is a bit of a curate's egg. The Bill could bring new vision and hope to children, parents and teachers, or it could bring with it an orgy of destruction and grief. The legislation will see the end of local independence for grant-maintained schools, such as Westwood St. Thomas in my constituency, which will be forced back under the county council from which it so recently escaped. I deplore the way in which Church schools will be treated. There will be no role in the hiring and firing of teachers for the diocesan director of education, and a reduction in the number of Church-appointed governors. On other issues, the Church schools are happier.
Through the Bill, new Labour is taking massive powers from local people and handing them to Ministers. The present Ministers are such very nice people. I worry very much about who will follow them. I have enjoyed much debate with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), and her colleagues, and formerly with the Secretary of State on very important and fundamental local government issues, such as local government finance, the poll tax and the council tax. I worry about giving so much power to such very nice people, only to see in a year or two completely different people in their posts.
The Bill represents no new, open government. The future of our grammar schools, such as Bishop Wordsworth's school and South Wilts grammar school in my constituency, hang on the ballots of parents. The regulations on which parents may vote are still secret. Ministers must realise how easy it would be to rig the ballot in favour of abolition. I noticed that the Secretary of State mentioned that issue in his speech, and I noted carefully what he said. He referred to appropriate feeder and primary schools where 20 per of relevant parents trigger a ballot.
What is an appropriate feeder school? Who are relevant parents? Those secrets will not do. We must know the exact detail before we can possibly support the measures, or we shall realise that they are just a cover-up for old Labour's antipathy towards grammar and grant-maintained schools. I challenge Ministers not just to try to put the clock back 18 years but to encourage exciting developments.
The variety of good schools in my constituency is remarkable. I hope that any new Act will build on it. Pride in the town of Amesbury is under stress, since all our sixth formers are having to leave their town for others for post-16 education. That is not of practical benefit to the community. When the pattern of local education was settled 15 or so years ago, the population of the town was never envisaged to be as great as it is now. It is not helpful to Amesbury and it is a disincentive to young people that post-16 education means trekking miles each day—and back again—up to Durrington, down to Salisbury or, indeed, out of the county.
Fashion in education changes, too. Fifteen years ago, the experts thought that 16-year-olds would grow up more quickly and better in colleges of further education. Today, parents usually prefer a school sixth form to provide a more appropriate atmosphere for learning and personal development. Parents in my constituency in Downton, Amesbury and much of Salisbury understand that very well. That is why I welcome and support moves by Wyvern boys technology college and St. Edmund's secondary modern for girls on the Laverstock site to


explore the opportunity of a new joint sixth form. I look forward to the arrival of the Wyvern baccalaureate—approved by the university of Bath.
Such a joint sixth form would pose no threat to existing schools. It would mean changes for Salisbury college, but it is doing extremely well at expanding further education and its franchised degree courses. It has opted to change its own character and realises that other educational establishments will change theirs. Will Ministers tell me whether the sort of changes that I have described will be encouraged by the Bill?
Schedule 17 deals with the staffing of voluntary-aided schools. It is a very long schedule of 24 paragraphs—although not as long as schedule 28, which has 146 paragraphs. There are 30 schedules, 130 pages of small print and a fistfuls of blank cheques.
I know that the Church of England is disappointed that the measure introduced in 1991 concerning the diocesan board of education is not reinforced by or incorporated in the Bill. That measure requires that, in a Church of England voluntary-aided school, the chief education officer of the local education authority and the diocesan director of education should have the same rights. Personally, I should have preferred those rights to apply to voluntary-controlled schools as well.
Paragraph 2 of schedule 17 provides that the governing body may agree with the LEA to accord advisory rights to the chief education officer in the engagement or dismissal of teachers—but if the governors do not agree, the Secretary of State can overrule them anyway under the joyous situation that we are about to see unfold. Paragraph 2(7) explains that the chief education officer includes
any officer of the authority nominated by the chief education officer.
The poor old diocesan director is still left out. The Bill recognises neither the rights nor the responsibilities of diocesan directors of education. That is not acceptable, and I ask Ministers to amend schedule 17 in Committee to put that right in the interests of building a partnership with Church schools.
Similarly, I hope that Ministers will consider again the role of governors in schools where a diocesan board of education had a majority of appointments of foundation governors, which will be forced to abandon GM status and become new foundation schools, and where the Church will have only a minority of appointments to the same school, serving the same community.
Will the Minister reveal the identity of the spectre at the feast who appears briefly in schedule 9? In the explanatory memorandum, we are told in chapter III—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has had his 10 minutes.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Like my hon. Friends, I welcome the Bill's Second Reading.
Also like many of my hon. Friends, during the summer recess, I had the opportunity to bring together teachers, governors and representatives of the education department in my constituency to discuss the White Paper "Excellence in Schools". I was—as I always am—struck

by their dedication and commitment, their enthusiasm for the legislation and the White Paper, and their remarks about improving standards in education.
It is vital that we continue to listen, co-operate and understand the realities of teaching in the late 1990s. There can be no doubt that, in certain areas, teachers do one of the most difficult jobs. They face many demands from every quarter—from children, parents, governors, local education authorities, employers, colleges and universities. Not least, and rightly, there are demands from the Government—because education is our No. 1 priority. All of us are reliant on having good teachers, and that is what the majority are. At the meetings that I have organised, the new, clear and accountable role of the LEA in raising standards was welcomed. The education officers in my constituency see their role as a positive partnership with schools, not one of unnecessary interference, as was alleged earlier.
I can understand why some of the grant-maintained schools in my constituency have some anxiety about re-establishing their relationship with the LEA. However, the fact that LEAs will be subject to rigorous inspections, as schools are, will be welcome and will perhaps alleviate some of the anxiety. Time will tell.
It is right that schools should have autonomy and be able to develop their personalities and aspirations. However, they should not be isolated from the rest of the education community in their area. All schools have to be involved if we are to develop the most effective education development plans and to ensure that we maximise resources. By resources, I mean knowledge and not just finance. An example of that is promoting and sharing best practice and exchanging information about home-school contracts.
During the meetings that I organised, the issue of home-school contracts prompted much debate. For many schools, they are a straightforward exercise involving co-operative parents and well-behaved children. For other schools, home-school contracts mean expending considerable effort and energy. If home-school contracts are to be worth while, they must be more than just a paper exercise. The piece of paper is secondary: the most important requirement is the relationship, and developing a positive relationship with some parents is not always easy. Getting them to take an active interest in their child's education in school can appear damned near impossible.
However, those parents often have the children with the greatest needs; indeed, the children's needs can be so great because of their parents. It can be done, and the school of which I am proud to be a governor—Wayfield primary in Chatham—sees the developing of two-way responsibility between parents and school as the key to continuing its improvement. Getting home-school contracts right and developing the relationships will have many rewards and help to tackle the problems about which we have heard, such as deprivation and bad behaviour.
In Kent, we face particular challenges in improving education standards for all children. Historically, the county has been underfunded, despite its relative wealth—contrary to what the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said—and that has been well recorded and recognised. For decades, Kent has been one of the lowest investors in education. For example,


between 1991 and 1993, Conservative Kent robbed schools of £80 million. It underspent its education standard spending assessment by £53.2 million between 1991 and 1992 and by £29.7 million between 1992 and 1993, at a time when schools were crumbling and the school repair bill in Kent totalled £75 million. Worse still, children with special educational needs had to wait four years for their statements to be produced.
Fortunately, a sea change occurred. Under the stewardship of my colleague, Joyce Esterson, the co-chair of education, Kent received a much-needed boost. Between 1993 and 1997, the administration, like the Government, placed education at the top of its priorities. It improved standards and resources and, importantly, developed a working partnership with the teaching profession that did not previously exist. Gone were outside toilets, down to six months went the wait for special education needs statements, and the first nursery classes were built in Kent since the previous Labour Government's urban aid programme. I am proud to say that one of those nurseries was built in my constituency, in Chatham.
We also saw the introduction of the children's university, an innovative practice which opened schools on Saturday mornings to those children who needed extra tuition. That boost was achieved by parents, teachers and the LEA working together. I am pleased to say that the new Tory administration in Kent will continue the improvements laid down in previous years and has pledged to fund education fully, up to its SSA. Unfortunately, it now appears that the administration will charge for the children's university. That is to be regretted because it may exclude children from poorer families.
Kent faces a further significant challenge if it is to achieve the education system it wants. In Kent, we have 40 of the 163 11-plus selective grammar schools, which provide excellent education for 30 per cent. of Kent children. The vast majority of the rest go to secondary moderns. I welcome the opportunity that the ballots will provide to have a real debate about how we can ensure the best education system in Kent for all children. My position is clear: I want Kent to develop a modern comprehensive system, but that will be for parents to decide. I believe that all parents with children of statutory school age should have the right to decide, and I look forward to the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister on that point.
Why do I believe that a modern comprehensive system would be best for Kent children? The argument is not about ideology but about outcomes. The figures are alarming. When one compares Kent, which is a reasonably affluent area, with other areas, the figures do not make sense. In Kent, we have four out of the 20 of the lowest achieving schools, in A to C grades, in the country. We have the school with the lowest exam results in the country, despite that school having receiving a very good Ofsted report. In Kent, 42 schools have lower exam results than the lowest scorer in East Sussex. In Kent, 17 schools have lower exam results than the lowest scorer in Tower Hamlets, where 90 per cent. of pupils have English as a second language. In Kent, we have 24 schools that have lower exam results than the lowest performer in Wigan. What makes Kent different? Selection.
Imagine how difficult it is in secondary moderns, as a pupil who has failed the 11-plus and where 50 or even 60 per cent. of children in a class have special educational needs. That is simply not fair, although the work and the effort that teachers in those schools put in should be applauded—I certainly applaud them.
Exam results are not the only issue. Funding is also important. The grammar schools have large sixth forms and, therefore, extra money and better facilities. Within a mile of my constituency, there is a grammar school with excellent facilities and superb buildings, yet just down the road there is another school with its paint peeling off and its bricks crumbling. That is inequality, and it is a disgrace that cannot continue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Bill has been flagged by the Government as a significant event for Wales. The separate education White Paper for Wales was entitled "Building Excellent Schools Together". I think that the word "together" was supposed to convey something about the special circumstances of Wales.
The Bill is also the first major measure since the devolution referendum on an area of policy that falls within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales and will therefore be the responsibility of the national Assembly of Wales, which will be up and running in just over 18 months. The purpose of the Assembly, beyond the primary function of asserting and expressing constitutionally the national status of Wales for the first time in 600 years, is to enable the development of policies appropriate to Wales, springing from Welsh values and realities and geared to achieving success for Wales.
The Bill will progress through the House at the same time as the Bill to establish the national Assembly for Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales, in his preface to the White Paper on devolution, referred to schools as a particular example of the way in which the Assembly would enable the people of Wales to pursue their priorities.
At Welsh questions, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)—the Minister responsible for education in Wales—whether he thought that the Assembly would have powers to implement policy measures in education that would be distinctive for Wales. He responded positively, and claimed that it would. The problem is that the Assembly will have no primary legislative powers and, for a national Assembly, that is a grievous deficiency—to put it mildly. Labour Members have asserted that that is not an insuperable problem because primary legislation can be designed to give scope for action through the secondary legislative powers which the Assembly will have. There has been much talk about Henry VIII-style legislation and the scope that that provides.
I wanted to see what provision there was in the Bill for distinctive policies relevant to Wales to be developed by the Assembly which, as I have said, will be up and running in 18 months. I was not much encouraged by what the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said earlier today in response to my


intervention. He suggested that there would be scope for variation, but that it would have to be within the principles in the Bill. I do not like all those principles.
For the reasons I have mentioned, the Bill is a significant event for Wales, but I cannot see all that much relevance in it. I cannot see that it will enable us to design the policies that I want to see implemented in Wales. I am not sure whether the irrelevance of the Bill is a matter of design or a matter of default. Having studied it carefully, I am not all that much the wiser.
It cannot be only I who am none the wiser, because the Library's briefing paper does not provide much help. I was hoping for assistance from the Library in understanding the implications of clause 118(6), which says:
Any order or regulations under this Act may make different provision in relation to England and Wales respectively.
However, the Library briefing stops abruptly at clause 117—obviously, it did not feel like tackling the issue.
I am unclear on the extent to which the Bill will facilitate or frustrate the crucial task of building excellent schools together, as the Welsh White Paper puts it. I am unsure, but, from what I have seen, I am sceptical. There is one welcome exception: the provision in clauses 112 and 113 to foster a collaborative initiative in Wales between further education colleges and schools in providing post-16 education. That is a welcome response to the findings of the Select Committee report on further education in Wales, with which I was proud to be associated.
The measure should provide a starting point to enable the national Assembly to move towards an integrated comprehensive tertiary system—the kind of system that would be cost-efficient and would eliminate the wasteful duplication we see in post-16 education in Wales. It will provide a real choice for students in a wide range of subject areas, both vocational and academic, and would enable the combination of the two.
I hope that we are able to move quickly towards the implementation and the adoption of the Welsh bac—the Welsh baccalaureate—as the main post-16 qualification in Wales. I was disappointed by the Welsh Office's refusal to fund a pilot for the Welsh bac. That sprung, I am afraid, from the terror of doing things differently in Wales from what happens in England. I am confident that the Assembly will not make the same mistake.
There is much that is good in the Bill, but I am afraid that there is much that gives profound concern as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There is far too much accommodation of the agenda and obsessions of the previous Government; the agreement that I received from Conservative Members shows that they are not in tune with my reservations.
The previous Government clearly saw the competitive market as the engine for driving up standards. Not only would schools compete for pupils, but pupils would compete for places in schools. Schools performance tables—league tables, as they are called—are only an instrument to enable parents to participate in that competitive market. They were accompanied by the aggressive rhetoric sometimes associated with the private sector and competition, especially in relation to teachers' performance.
The Government have reined in all of that and modified the approach, but too much remains. As for aggressive rhetoric, I do not like phrases such as "zero tolerance".

What is the difference, I ask myself, between zero tolerance and intolerance? I do not like to see the naming and shaming of schools, as that is not the way to tackle the real problems.
As well as the emphasis on pupils' preferences, the Bill gives far too much credence to selection. The Bill protects, rather than attacks, grammar schools—despite what some Tories have said—and will allow them to expand. It will allow other selective schools to continue to select on the basis of ability. Clause 93 proposes to allow selection by ability to be increased through the back door. It uses the term "aptitude", but aptitude on one or more subjects is a pretty good indicator of general ability. It is not a perfect indicator, but any teacher will know that it is a good one.
The measure has been introduced in the name of specialism—that is its justification. We are told that this is at the heart of the Secretary of State's and the Government's vision of the education system. Education will cater for the individual strengths of a child rather than assuming a bland sameness for all. If the Government are serious about avoiding a bland sameness, I suggest that they listen carefully to the proposals of the Third Sector Schools Alliance to allow schools with alternative curricula, such as Muslim schools, to come into the maintained sector.
I am dubious about the idea of specialist schools. Pupils need a first-rate general education, with the variations that one gets between schools. The idea of selecting pupils for hot-house treatment in PE or music is rather manipulative and disturbing. However, I am more worried by the credibility that the Bill gives to the principle of selection by ability. It is true that it is limited to 10 per cent., but it is establishing the principle of selection, and it makes it easier for a future Government to expand the principle. I do not necessarily mean a Conservative Government, or a Government not led by the present Prime Minister. The Labour Government, under this Prime Minister, are capable of extending the principle—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak. While offering—the House will not be surprised to hear—my wholehearted support for and endorsement of the Government for the Bill, it is important to remind the House of the historical context of the Bill, which makes its production after such a short period so impressive. 
During the past 50 years, the schools system has suffered from some of the most horrendous swings. In the 1950s, we had rote learning and the approach of the "sheep and goats" tendency parodied by, among others, Dennis Potter—when a teacher said, "Good morning," all the pupils wrote it down. We then had the 1960s and 1970s. There were many good things in that period, such as the creative originality and expression that were given rein in schools, but damaging pseudo-educational theories were also perpetrated. This Government are determined to repair the resultant damage and chaos caused to literacy and numeracy.
We then had the Tory Administration, with their emphasis on dogma. In the 1980s, there were times when I thought that the Tory party had gone Maoist, so committed was it to the doctrine of permanent revolution. Now, we have an opportunity to put all that behind us.
My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have rightly produced a Bill that puts the emphasis on standards and not on structures. What concerns all hon. Members is how the Bill will be judged in our constituencies and how it will affect schools there. Many of our constituencies have an enormous variety of social circumstances and schools. That is one reason the provision of education action zones in smaller areas than the traditional local education authority areas is so important.
In the central area of my constituency, conditions mimic those of the inner city—60 to 65 per cent. of children have free school meals, classes are large, conditions are often cramped and do not permit expansion, and many children are from bed-and-breakfast backgrounds.
Earlier this year, with our shadow Health spokesperson—now my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—I visited a nursery in the constituency that I was hoping to gain. We spoke to the people responsible for the three and four-year-olds before they went on to school and were told that one of their most important tasks was to teach table manners. We asked what they meant. They told us that they had to teach children how to sit at table and use a knife and fork because many of them spent their time sitting on the edge of a bed eating takeaways and did not know how to use a knife and fork or a plate properly. That is the social context in which the early years forum, which is presaged by the Bill, is so important. It is also the social context in which literacy schemes aimed at both the adult population and children are so important, and it is one reason I commend the Bill so warmly.
Hon. Members have heard that there was a tremendous response to the consultation process on the White Paper. My constituency was no exception. I called a meeting, which was attended by more than 80 school governors, chairs and teachers, and we had a good discussion. Most of the principles of the Bill are based on the White Paper. I have here a little extract from one of the comments. Some hon. Members have commented on the voluntary sector. A voluntary-aided comprehensive school in my constituency says that the White Paper
is ambitious and encouraging. It has a coherence to it and is based on the principles and practices which underpin the education service. For the first time in many years, a Government document gets to the roots of what is important in education and in the raising of standards.
That is why I was saddened at the shadow Secretary of State's curmudgeonly approach to the White Paper and to the value of education action zones. Were it not for the fact that his rhetoric descended on us with all the impact of a slap in the face with a wet kipper, it would have been particularly unfortunate and unpleasant, because the education action zones will hit many of the buttons that must be pressed in 1990s education. They will allow flexibility and the involvement of many agencies and will break down the disastrous divorce between private and public education. They will show the importance of early-years education and bring in youth workers and local businesses.
Echoing the thoughts expressed by other hon. Members this evening, I hope that as many education authorities and sub-authorities as possible will apply to be education action zones. They are not something to be aimed merely at failing schools and standards.
The Bill will be judged on the hope that it brings to individual schools. About a month ago, I presented prizes at a high school in my constituency. It is a community school, with 400 or 500 pupils drawn mainly from the local estates. When we debate the Bill in more detail, the importance of school size and its relevance to teaching techniques will become increasingly apparent.
The school does not have the best GCSE results in Blackpool, but it has an enormous sense of community spirit. Frankly, in some respects the teaching is old-fashioned, and it is none the worse for that. The pride of the teachers, pupils and parents comes across. In music and sport, for example, the school does much better than average, and those are the sort of things that will be recognised as a result of the Bill and the education action zones, as well as our well-heralded priorities on literacy and numeracy.
At the prize giving, I had to come up with the old clichés about what one says on such occasions. I mentioned my school motto—it is in Latin, as I am afraid that I went to one of those old-fashioned schools—"Vincit qui patitur". I explained that it was technically, "He conquers who endures", or "He conquers who suffers" and said that another way to look at it was, "You will get there if you stick at it." Getting there if you stick at it is at the heart of the Bill.
As a Government, we are not trying to reinvent the wheel or to block out everything that has happened in the past 20 to 30 years. We are trying to make a systematic impact on society and to tackle all the various problems with an holistic approach. That is why the Bill and the concept of education action zones are so important, and why I am delighted to commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. David Lidington: I found much in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) with which I was able to agree, in particular most of his remarks about education action zones, but I feel that we have had something of a Jekyll and Hyde act from Labour Back Benchers and, indeed, the Government.
We have had "A Christmas Carol" of sorts; the Secretary of State and Labour Members denounced every educational initiative of the 1980s, but they seem to have been changed beyond all recognition, presumably by sympathetic hauntings from the benevolent spirits of Lord Joseph and Lord Baker. They now come before us ready to accept the system of testing, independent inspection and league tables that they resisted with their utmost energy and vigour when they were on the Opposition Benches and Conservative Ministers were taking the measures through the House.
While Conservative Members, following the lead of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), welcome that conversion and the emphasis, or at least the rhetorical emphasis, that the Secretary of State placed on the need to drive up school standards, we also remain united in our opposition to those parts of the Bill that seek not to improve schools that are failing or


content with mediocrity, but to pull down and destroy schools that are achieving on behalf of pupils they exist to serve. My right hon. Friend referred to the way in which grant-maintained schools, whose independence the Bill would extinguish, have succeeded in improving standards and acting as catalysts for innovation and greater diversity within the maintained system of education.
In Buckinghamshire, we have the only local education authority with an entirely selective secondary education system. It is not simply an accident that, this year, Buckinghamshire has also produced the best GCSE results of any local education authority.

Mr. Brady: My local authority—Trafford—is also entirely selective, and we can compete in having the best A-level results in the country.

Mr. Lidington: I am delighted that we can engage in this friendly competition. Of course, my hon. Friend has to contend with a Labour party in Trafford that is, sadly, committed to destroying those schools and the success to which he referred.
In Buckinghamshire, not only the grammar schools, such as Aylesbury high school, Aylesbury grammar school and Sir Henry Floyd grammar school, are achieving high standards. As Labour and Opposition Members have said today, we live in an educational world that can accommodate diversity and in which there is a growing recognition that schools of different characters can exist side by side, each pursuing excellence in its own sphere.
One need only look at some of the non-selective upper schools in my constituency or elsewhere in Buckinghamshire, such as the Misbourne school in Great Missenden or Holmer Green upper school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), which was singled out by the chief inspector in his published list of the most successful schools in the country, to see that dedicated governors and teachers, with the support of parents, can succeed and put to rest the myth that a selective system can succeed only by favouring the few at the expense of the many.
I hope that, if the Government, as I fear they will, insist on including the clauses that aim at the extinction of selective grammar schools, they will at least comply with the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood to publish, at an early stage of our proceedings in Committee, the draft regulations that are to govern the operation of grammar school ballots. We need to know exactly which parents are to be eligible to take part.
I welcome what has been said about the 20 per cent. trigger for such a ballot and the recognition in the Bill that circumstances may differ between some authorities; a ballot for a particular school may be appropriate in some circumstances and in others a ballot covering the entire LEA might be better.
I hope that the Minister for School Standards, either today or when he publishes the draft regulations, will explain the Government's view on the possibility of a moratorium after a ballot. It would be regrettable if, once a ballot had settled matters and parents had decided to retain grammar schools, there were to be a further period of uncertainty, lasting possibly for many years, as one ballot succeeded another.
Other parts of the Bill also cause me concern. As well as publishing the draft regulations on grammar school ballots, I hope that the Government will not delay long in issuing the draft code on admissions policy that the Secretary of State proposes to publish. The policy proposed in the Bill would give much greater control to the Secretary of State over the policies of individual governing bodies and local education authorities.
As I understand the Bill, admissions procedures would have to be drawn up by the relevant admission authority—either the LEA or a governing body—and that, if that admission authority was a governing body, it would have to consult not only its own LEA but all other admission authorities for all other maintained schools in the relevant area. It would fall to the Secretary of State to define the relevant area; as the Bill stands, the term could apply to an area greater or smaller than an individual LEA. The Government owe it to the House to allow those matters to be explored adequately in Committee.
The Bill refers to appeals being made to an adjudicator. I would like to know more about that official's function, his terms of reference and whether his decisions would be subject to judicial review by the courts. The adjudicator himself could refer to the Secretary of State.
How would the admissions policy proposed in the Bill interact with the Government's policy on class sizes? There are only two ways in which it seems to me to be possible for the Government to meet their targets on class sizes: the first is to find from some source or other large additional resources to pay for the employment of teachers and teaching assistants. I have seen nothing in the figures that the Government have published so far—this is about the only matter on which I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—to suggest that they have the money in the kitty to fund such additional appointments; the second is to insist, through a strict admissions policy and a limit on appeals, that more children attend schools to which their parents do not want to send them. The Bill will severely restrict parental rights of appeal.
The hon. Member for Bath and my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) referred to the problem of the 31st child, as identified by the Local Government Association. What happens in a school that serves a small town or village in a rural area? Is that child to be bussed many miles to a different school far from home? Are brothers and sisters to be split up because they fall foul of the arbitrary ceiling that the Government want to impose?
Are we in danger of getting into a system in which children whose birthdays happen to fall late in the academic year cannot get into the school near home or the school of their parents' choice simply because all the places up to the prescribed limit have been filled by the children who are lucky enough to have been born earlier? That strikes me as unfair.
I hope that the Minister will answer those detailed points, either today or in Committee.

6 pm

Valerie Davey: I support the Bill in general and especially the education action zones, linked as they are to the concepts of innovation and raising standards. There is widespread support for them, and I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Bath (Mr.


Foster) commenting enthusiastically and amazed to hear the Secretary of State adding his support—a conversion, I feel, from the dogma of competition to that of co-operation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shadow."] Thank you. I meant the shadow Secretary of State.
There is also varied support outside the House. The National Association of Head Teachers regards the zones as
an exciting concept that could have a dramatic impact on progress towards achieving national targets
and Third Sector Schools Alliance says that the zones have the potential to enable radical measures to be tested. The basic concept is not new: groups of schools in all parts of the country that have sought, despite the divisive competition promoted by the previous Government, to work together, will welcome the proposals.
We welcome the proposals because they are based on collaboration, which brings the more efficient use of resources, including staff; the sharing of new ideas in the school community and beyond; the ability to attract the interest of commerce, industry and other partners; and a widening of links within education, from pre-school to post-retirement.
Young people in the education action zones will see the widening partnership and will see themselves within it as part of those communities. Previously, such groups, clusters and federations had only their innate good sense to support them against the hostile and divisive policies of the previous Government.
I want to consider briefly a federation that started in south Bristol in the mid-1980s. Five, and later six, secondary schools, which had been denied a tertiary college by the previous Government, came together of their own volition with their local further education college mutually to support the young people of the area. There was joint funding for someone to co-ordinate the federation. That person soon became an advocate and gained a high profile, and high-profile sponsorship, not only for individual pupils but for events and for longer-term projects. The staff came together across subjects, school age groups and sectors for local training. They came together to share ideas.
It was not long before the children of south Bristol were getting a better deal. We could see the beginnings of an improvement in their school standards. It was slowed down, and finally stopped, by the incorporation of the further education college and the reduced funding for schools in the punitive local management of schools system that so emphasised the need to increase pupil numbers.
We are therefore considering a system that has already been tried and that, under this Bill, would go even further. The proposals will not only bring together the groups that the south Bristol federation attempted to unite; in the action zones, members from local communities, business, industry and the voluntary sector would come together to support schools. There would also be a wider age spectrum. Parents would be attracted to further community education. As they got involved in education, lifelong learning would become a reality.
I want schools in the action zones to benefit from the support of the community. I want the concept to lead to the regeneration of those communities. It would be a

two-way process, especially if we can link the zones with the new health zones and the improvements in employment projects. The whole concept is inspiring, and I fully recommend it.

Mr. Phil Willis: Having spent the past 34 years in teaching in the maintained sector, I was disappointed by the carping criticism of Conservative Members. They fail to understand that the vast majority of schools, teaching organisations, governors, parents and teachers want an end to conflict in our schools. All of them welcome the Bill. That is why I welcome the requirement for local education authorities to raise standards and the fact that they will be held accountable for that duty. They can discharge it only in partnership with teachers, governors, parents and Government. Too often in my lifetime in education, we have seen conflict, not partnership, between those sectors. Let us not forget that that conflict was as fierce before 1979 as it has been since.
There are dangers in giving LEAs a central role in the drive to raise standards. Some already see the Bill as a green light to reimpose the era of control, this time based not on the argument of local democracy but on the slogans of standards. If we are to achieve what I believe the Government want from the Bill, and what we certainly want, the need to clarify the powers of LEAs is paramount.
Liberal Democrats have argued for light-touch LEAs. We realise the need for a framework to assist with admissions, the provision of school places, the, support of major capital funding and the provision of advisory and support services., but it is not the LEAs' responsibility to monitor and judge teaching and learning. They must not be encouraged by the Bill to develop unfettered powers of intervention. The best relationships will be those where LEAs, such as North Yorkshire, are invited to support, not those that make schools offers they cannot refuse.
In Committee, we shall seek to establish in what circumstances LEAs should intervene in schools and whether schools have the right of appeal. If the Bill allows an interventionist or empire-building LEA to intervene at any stage at which it can identify a management issue in a school, we could be catapulted back into the 1970s. That would undermine the principle of partnership between schools and the LEA and the relationship between the governing body and the school. We shall seek from the Secretary of State a commitment to a statutory code of practice to clarify the powers of LEAs to intervene in schools so that the balance of partnership is maintained.
Like other hon. Members, I warmly welcome the Government's commitment to early-years education. The requirement for LEAs to draw up in partnership with recognised providers an early-years development plan is an excellent start, but the Government lack courage and vision in what is surely the most crucial area if we are to raise standards in all our schools. We recognise that, once the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted the seasonal character of Scrooge rather than Santa Claus on 2 May, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was unlikely to look further than four-year-olds in considering early-years education. We understand his difficult position and recognise that doing something is better than doing


nothing, but he knows only too well that providing places for four-year-olds will in itself do little to resolve the need for early-years education, and very little to expand provision.
Rather than improve provision, the previous Administration's vouchers-for-votes fiasco did the opposite. In the past year, 800 community-based pre-schools have closed and a further 1,500 are threatened with closure, almost entirely as a result of young children being admitted to schools shortly after their fourth birthday. In some authorities, there has been a near collapse of nursery school provision. The Government's proposals will do nothing to halt that trend, because many private sector providers can cannot survive on providing places for three-year-olds.
More worrying is the Secretary of State's lack of understanding of the nature of provision for three and four-year-olds. He rightly says that he wants quality provision for four-year-olds, but the reality is that more and more four-year-olds are being educated in reception classes. There are sound reasons for educating three and four-year-olds together, independently of children in reception classes. I trust that the Secretary of State will give a firm, timetabled commitment to phase in provision for three and four-year-olds, at least over the lifetime of this Parliament.
The Secretary of State must be aware that he cannot simply expand early-years education in isolation from a comprehensive child care strategy. We will therefore seek his support to make it a duty for LEAs to produce, with other public and private sector partners, a comprehensive plan to provide integrated child care and early-years education for children below statutory school age. Several of the Government's proposals for this Parliament depend on providing comprehensive education and care for under-fives. The new deal, welfare to work, nursery education, raising education standards, and even the benefit reductions for lone parents, are not stand-alone initiatives but part of the solution to the same problem: how do we in Britain in the 1990s create an inclusive society after years of division?
I must say to the Secretary of State that, unless we comprehensively address the need for child care provision and quality early years education as the foundation for raising standards, the rest of his Bill might just as well be shelved.
That leads me to an unfortunate omission from the Bill—reference to special education needs. The Secretary of State has produced an excellent White Paper, entitled "Excellence in schools", and it was pleasing to note the generous support it received when it was debated in the House a couple of weeks ago. Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting, however, that a Bill to improve standards can be devoid of any reference to special education needs? The Liberal Democrats are committed to seeing our education system become a truly inclusive one, yet there remains a looseness surrounding the need to include children with special needs in mainstream education.
No doubt the Secretary of State will say that there is already adequate legislation on children with special needs in the Education Acts 1981, 1993 and 1996. After all, the 1981 Act directed LEAs to place all pupils in mainstream schools, but there were some important caveats. That was to be done provided it was compatible with a pupil

receiving the special educational provision that he requires … the provision of efficient education for the children with whom he will be educated; and … the efficient use of resources.
In reality, those opt-out clauses gave sufficient scope for schools and some LEAs to refuse parental requests for mainstream provision for children with special needs.
I have been involved with the inclusion of children with special needs for more than 20 years. In Cleveland, we successfully integrated more than 90 per cent. of children at secondary age who had severe physical disabilities. That approach, which was championed by the Pocklington-Hegarty National Foundation for Educational Research study, has been replicated in almost all LEAs today. For the past 14 years in Leeds, I have had the privilege of being part of a major project to integrate children with severe learning difficulties, mostly children with Down's syndrome. Today, 80 per cent. of such children in Leeds are educated in mainstream schools.
The inclusive provision is, however, a lottery and whether a child receives education alongside his or her peers should not depend on where they live or who the head and the governors are. It should be a right and such provision should be made in the Bill. We will propose a new clause to the Bill that would make it a requirement for LEAs to enshrine the principle of inclusive education in their development plans.
Although the Government should be rightly commended for introducing the Bill, there is still much work to be done. For our part, we will work with the Government to clarify and improve the Bill. I trust that the Secretary of State will be open to our suggestions.

9 pm

Ms Sally Keeble: I am most grateful to have the chance to participate in this debate because education and school standards are key issues for my constituency.
One of the advantages of speaking late in the debate is that one can sit and listen to everything that is said by the Opposition. By and large, their contributions have been marked by two things. First, they have talked endlessly about divisiveness and structures. We have heard a great deal from them about selection, grant-maintained schools, assisted places and the independent sector. In fact, they have shown every sign of wanting the divisiveness and conflict which so marred discussion of education in the late 1980s and early 1990s to continue.
The second matter about which Opposition Members have spoken endlessly is privilege and how to ensure that quality education is retained as a privilege for the few and not made a right for the majority of children.
The Bill sets out a framework that will get away from the conflict that caused so many problems in our education service in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It sets out the framework in which everyone who is involved in the education service can work in partnership. That partnership, which will involve different types of schools, including grant-maintained and even independent schools, as well as local education authorities and the community, including the business community, will operate for the benefit of children.
The Bill comes after exhaustive consultation in which all those partners and more looked in detail at how they can best unlock the potential of children in our schools.


They considered why children across the range of abilities do better in some schools than in others; what makes a good school; and the best practice that enables children to achieve. They also studied how to extend that best practice so that all children get the best added value out of their schooling.
Those considerations lead to the second aim of the Bill, which is to extend such educational advantages to all children. One of the most dramatic measures in the Bill, and probably one of the most difficult to achieve, is that designed to lower class sizes for children in those early years. Let me cite an example of the way in which that change will transform children's expectations at school. In my LEA in Northamptonshire about 3,000 children in early years education are taught in classes of more than 30. They will see the benefits of the Bill. It is worth noting that the assisted places scheme in Northamptonshire benefits just 253 children, at a cost of £949,000, which is enough to employ upwards of 50 teachers. I have no doubt where the public would rather see that sum of close on £1 million spent.
We have also heard the Opposition talk critically about some of the specific practice measures in the Bill, and I shall single out one: home-school contracts. They are extremely important and, in a certain sense, they fill one of the missing links in the education service. Where there is real disadvantage—I speak as a former leader of Southwark council where many of the children were extremely disadvantaged—one characteristic is that parents are frequently not involved in the school, or are hostile to it. Getting individual parents involved in their children's education will be a key element.
I wish to deal with two points of advantage and disadvantage. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) is shouting, "Cheltenham, Cheltenham, Cheltenham." I shall take him on, because I think that all three of us ex-Cheltenham ladies prove that, if a child with reasonable ability is placed in a school with small class sizes, well qualified teachers, good books, good equipment and lots of educational opportunities, he or she will obtain good exam results. That says nothing about the educational achievements of schools; all it tells us is how rich the parents are and how money could buy privilege in Tory Britain. The hon. Gentleman should not throw Cheltenham at me.
A further point relating to disadvantage perhaps applies particularly to Opposition Members. The pattern of disadvantage is changing. When I was at school, people used to talk about improving girls' achievements; now, a much bigger problem is what to do about under-achieving boys. In Northamptonshire in 1977, at key stage 1, in reading and writing, 85 per cent. of girls reached the expected levels, but only 76 per cent. of boys; at key stage 2, the figures were 66 per cent. for girls and 51 per cent. for boys; at GCSE, 46.9 per cent. of girls obtained five or more GCSE grades A to C and only 34.8 per cent. of boys achieved the same results. That is a growing problem that schools will have to address; perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards will say something about that when he replies.
I welcome the consensual tone of the Bill. I welcome the fact that we have allowed for the diversity in the school structure that will enable all schools, including church schools and the new foundation schools to

maintain a role and to make a contribution to children's achievement. I welcome the obligation to provide school meals. When Northamptonshire was under Conservative control, the Conservatives scrapped the school meals service. As well as disadvantaging children who came from poor homes, the policy was bitterly resented by working mothers.
I also welcome the recognition that there must be a proper role for the local education authority. Above all, I welcome the improvement in achievement and school performance which I believe that the Bill will bring for our school children in the future.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I am sure that, given her personal experience, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) will agree that, while resources are vital, ethos is perhaps even more important. That is why I want to direct my few remarks to one type of school: Church schools. I do so not because I am an education specialist, but because I have personal experience.
Two of my children attend a grant-maintained, state, Church primary school. Since they have been attending the school—which is housed in one of those grim, five or six-storey Victorian buildings which one sees in inner cities—I have been enormously impressed by the education that they are receiving in a grant-maintained Church school. I only wish to plead with both sides of the House in a non-party-political way to try to further the cause of those excellent schools, many of which are in inner-city areas.
The school which my children attend has the most extraordinary social mix of pupils, all of whom, whatever their background, receive a first-rate education.
Why is that? Sometimes, education spokesmen—not only Government spokesmen, but others as well— seem to be obsessed with academic standards. The philosophy contained in the White Paper and in others I have read over the years is one of "I learn, therefore I am," or even, "I perform, therefore I am," rather than one of trying to educate the whole person. We all have our personal pet theories about what is the real crisis in the classroom, or even whether there is such a crisis, but I believe that real the crisis in the classroom is a spiritual one—a crisis of meaning.
Research in Greenwich shows that the under-performance of white working-class boys is due in part to a lack of a sense of identity—they do not know who they are. We are selling our children short by failing to pass on to them any significant spiritual and cultural identity. Asian youngsters fare far better, thanks to their stronger sense of family and culture.
The first key stage 2 results showed that Church schools did significantly better than other schools—indeed, the top 64 schools in the league table were Church schools. Could that be, not because they are better resourced, or placed in middle-class areas, or have smaller classes than other schools—none of which is true—but because Church schools teach within a framework defined by a specific vision of the world and what it means to be human, and because they value people for what they are as well as for what they do?
In the midst of our information society, we need to educate our children to know which information is relevant and which is irrelevant. It is not enough to know


about the war between Bosnians and Serbs, starvation in Ethiopia, or mental breakdown; we need to discover, rediscover and pass on to our children the importance of theology, philosophy and the arts, so that they can learn why there are wars, hunger, homelessness and anger, and seek to change human behaviour accordingly. It is vital to pupils' development that spiritual, moral, social and cultural development form a central part of the curriculum. In the process of doing that, we will answer the wider questions that are so important.
In that context, I welcome the fact that the Bill makes no changes to the provision for religious education and school worship in county schools. There are some who call for the requirement for daily Christian worship to be changed, but from my experience of seeing the assembly that my children attend, I think that such gatherings are inspiring and moving and do no harm at all. That is not only my view, but the view of 69 per cent. of the British public, as expressed in the British social attitudes surveys; only 10 per cent. of the public objected to daily school prayers.
Why should I be worried, when 90 per cent. of primary schools keep to the law on daily Christian assembly? That figure comes from the chief inspector of schools. However, although keeping to the law on assemblies is the norm in the nation's 20,000 primary schools, it is a different picture in the nation's 5,000 secondary schools. According to the chief inspector, instead of 90 per cent. compliance, 75 per cent. of secondary schools do not comply with the law as laid out in statute. Those schools may hold assemblies on some days of the week, but they are still in breach of the law.
I hope that the Minister will encourage those schools to do better and to conform to what the British public want. The Education Act 1944 introduced county schools, which three quarters of children now attend. Any reading of the parliamentary debates as that Bill was going through its stages will confirm the view that county schools were non-denominational, but were intended to be Christian schools, with Christian assemblies. We have to bear that always in mind.
Earlier this year, the Government got into a great deal of trouble when they attempted to cut the number of Church school governors, so that their majority was reduced to one on governing bodies. I am glad that the Government have relented and decided that in those schools the present majority of two or three foundation governors over all other governors should continue. That is fine, but there is a problem: the Bill ends grant-maintained status.
Under the Bill, every GM school must decide to become a community school, a foundation school or a voluntary school. The governing bodies of the Church grant-maintained schools of the type that I send my children to and that the Prime Minister sends his children to—I make no complaint about that: he is entitled to do so and I congratulate him on doing so—must decide which type of school they wish theirs to become.
Obviously, it would be impossible for such a school, with a clear denominational ethos, to become a community school, so the choice will be between a foundation school and a voluntary school. If a school becomes a foundation school, it need not raise the 15 per cent. for its capital spending—which is fine—but the five foundation governors are outnumbered by the 15 other

governors, so there is no guarantee that the religious ethos of the school can be maintained. I do not believe, therefore, that those schools will take that route. If, however, the school becomes a voluntary aided school, the foundation governors will be in the majority but the school must raise 15 per cent. of any capital spending.
Dick Turpin would accost his victims with the phrase,"Your money or your life." Grant-maintained schools are in a similar dilemma. They must choose between money or their ethos—their religious life. Why cannot they have, as they have in recent years, both enhanced flexibility on finance and control of their religious ethos?

Charlotte Atkins: Nearly half of 11-year-olds leave primary school without reaching the expected standard for their age. That is a damning indictment of the previous Government and a massive challenge for the new Labour Government.
Reaching our new education targets will be no mean feat. By 2002, we want three quarters of 11-year-olds to reach the expected standards in maths and 80 per cent. to reach those in English. We do not want a generation of our children blighted in the labour market, failed by our education system. There is a growing wage gap between these who are skilled and those who are unskilled and poorly educated. Teachers will receive the help that they need to deliver our demanding education standards. Class sizes will be reduced, there will be additional training, and local education authorities will give support.
I have tremendous admiration for teachers, most of whom are dedicated, hard working, highly skilled and incredibly enthusiastic. However, a few cannot cope with the challenges in our classrooms. One such teacher left my daughter, at the age of six, literally bored to tears. She transformed a child who loved school into one who hated it.
Luckily, we resolved that problem within half a term, but such intervention should not be left to worried parents. Therefore I enthusiastically endorse the procedures to remove incompetent teachers from the classroom when all other measures to improve performance have failed.
That teacher was computer-phobic. She denied the class a vital tool for raising educational standards, in a school with a very deprived catchment area. I believe that on-line learning can really open up the curriculum to those who are left cold by traditional methods. I find it exciting that such technology can broaden horizons, not just for the most able but—perhaps even more important—for the least able. New technology is especially effective in getting through to pupils with special needs.
Two years ago, the Prime Minister said that the Labour Government would connect every school in Britain to the super-highway. That policy is now in place and those schools will be linked up free of charge. However, I believe that, under a Labour Government, we can do that much earlier, and that the United Kingdom can set the pace for schools in Europe and throughout the world.
My local education authority, Staffordshire, has scored a national first and has led the way in the use of information technology. It has set up its own learning net—the Staffordshire learning net—connecting all


education providers through learning centres. Those learning centres will be open not just to school and university students, but to the local community, which will make them—the schools and learning centres involved—the centre of their communities.
That will create tremendous opportunities for schools, other educational institutions and businesses, enabling them to work together to raise standards of literacy, numeracy and subject knowledge. That is much more productive than the old-style competitive culture fostered by the Tory Government, which divided schools and made them compete against each other and against other educational institutions. The learning net is bringing together the expertise of educational institutions, to the benefit of our pupils in Staffordshire.
We have home-grown computer software companies such as Europress, whose chairman lives in my constituency. Those companies are desperate to meet the challenge offered by Labour. They are presenting programs that will support educational standards in the classroom, and will replace many of the American programs that are so inappropriate for our schools. I believe that, under Labour, we will enter a really exciting time for educational progress.

Mrs. Angela Browning: This has been a full debate. Because of the length of the Bill, it has raised many questions—questions to which we hope the Minister will be able to give answers. In Committee, we shall not only seek further clarification, but try to persuade the Minister to alter some of the clauses. I hope that he is in a receptive mode—this being the time of year when wishes are granted—and I hope that, in this wonderful spirit of co-operation, he will listen to me when I say what I want for Christmas.
In the 1980s, it was right to introduce the national curriculum, and to set up more effective management systems to develop a more effective inspection arrangement and inform parents in a better way. The changes were necessary and useful. I am pleased to say that I quoted those words directly from the Government's White Paper, in which the Secretary of State promised not only to keep the changes made by the Conservative Government in the 1980s but to develop them. We welcome that. There are many things in the White Paper—and now in the Bill—that we will support, because they build on tried and tested changes in education that were introduced by the last Government.
It may be somewhat churlish of me—but why not?—to say that, at the time, it was the Labour party that opposed just about all those changes. We welcome the party's conversion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, but we will oppose the Bill—not because of the elements that I have mentioned, which we support, but because we believe that the Bill makes significant changes to the future of education that will damage children, parents and schools.
For one thing, the Bill significantly reduces choice. I do not just mean that that was introduced by the last Government; clearly, choice in education—the variety of schools, and the mix of schools—has proved successful in helping to drive up standards, and parents clearly want

it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have given examples to prove that parents—they themselves, as parents—have exercised choice, and they have been able to do so only because of the variety of schools that are now available thanks to the previous Government's policy.
The two types of secondary school that are under threat are grammar and grant-maintained schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said how much he, as a parent, valued the chance to chose a grant-maintained Church primary school for his children because of the school's ethos and the fact that it met the needs of parents looking for a school that replicated the parental view on religious education. That is important to many parents.
The Minister has modified the changes which the Bill will make to Church schools since the White Paper was first published. However, religious education and the ethos of a school are important. We have received representations, particularly from Catholic schools, which are nervous about their future. They want the opportunity to preserve and continue to offer that ethos in their schools, which parents have chosen for very good reasons.
Many questions about the future of grammar schools remain unanswered. I hope that the Minister will set our minds at rest, because many hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned grammar schools tonight. They are particularly concerned about the ballot and how it will be run. The Government often use words that are familiar to those of us with a marketing background. In Committee, we shall look for more than mere language; we shall look for action, and shall want to know exactly what that language means.
For example, if the Minister intends that a ballot will be used to determine a grammar school's future existence and portrays that method as a democratic process, we shall look beyond the words and will want to know just how democratic that process will be. We shall want to know who the Minister will select to take part in the ballot.
Clearly, ballots are in essence democratic, but the electorate who subscribe to a ballot could mean that a ballot has been rigged, for want of a better word, to ensure a certain outcome. We shall therefore look to the Government to ensure that actions follow their words. If ballots are to be truly democratic, the detail that is missing from the face of the Bill must be provided so that we can say that the Government are not totally against grammar schools, and the ballots will be democratic in the truest sense of the word.
We are also concerned about choices in other types of schools, particularly primary schools in rural areas. I have raised this matter with the Minister before, and other hon. Members have mentioned it tonight.
Under clause 33, schedule 7 gives the Secretary of State new reserve powers to direct local education authorities and governing bodies to make proposals for the "rationalisation of school places", and make such proposals himself. We seek clarification on that provision, because, although some small rural primary schools may not be full, to achieve the Government's objective of classes of no more than 30 pupils, they would be under threat of "rationalisation".
Some such primary schools teach across an age range of between 5 and 7. Small village primary schools should not be rationalised by simply closing one and making


parents transport their children to another, which is not of their choice and which may be in a village some distance away. The question of choice in primary schools is therefore in jeopardy. We want reassurance now and further reassurances in Committee.
Grammar schools were described by a Labour Member as an infernal institution. I attended such an infernal institution—

Mr. Willis: Look what it has done for you.

Mrs. Browning: Indeed. The Minister also attended such an institution, and the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said that she had attended Cheltenham ladies college, which must have been a wonderful experience for her. For children such as myself, whose parents could not have afforded it but who were able to attend a grammar school, it was an opportunity that we would not otherwise have had.
Labour Members who have benefited from selective education, or from what they choose to call a privileged education because they were able to pay for it, should acknowledge that that variety and choice in our education system has been a strength. It would be a great pity if, merely for reasons of dogma and prejudice, the Bill deprived future generations of young people, regardless of parental income, of an opportunity to attend a school such as many of us have benefited from.
The future of grammar schools hangs in the balance, and we look to the Minister to reassure us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), and my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Salisbury (Mr. Key) particularly asked about the appropriate feeder schools and the relevant parents. They wanted to know the details that would determine the future of our grammar schools.
The other point on which we will divide the House is structure. When the Secretary of State brought the White Paper to the Floor of the House, he said that it was about standards, not structure.

Mr. Blunkett: It was.

Hon. Members: It is.

Mrs. Browning: Perhaps someone would like to bid that it will be. If the Bill is to be about standards, not structures, the Government will have to make significant changes to it in Committee. At present, it is all about structure. Almost 100 extra powers are given to the Secretary of State alone. That does not even include the additional powers—[Interruption.] It is Christmas, and Labour Members have obviously become power-crazed. They want more power, and they will vote themselves more power.
Nothing in the word "partnership" in a party or a Government implies power on that scale, yet all the way through the debate, we have heard the word "partnership"—another marketing term that we recognise. If the word means anything, it means sharing. The Government cannot share if they have taken all the power to themselves. We shall seek considerable changes to the Bill through amendments in Committee.
The Liberal Democrats say that they will vote with the Government tonight—[Interruption.]—constructive opposition indeed—even though their spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), expressed his concern about the amount of power—

Mr. Don Foster: indicated assent.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman nods in agreement. The Liberal Democrats are worried about the Bill, but they will still vote for it. That is the price of four seats around the Cabinet table. They will be with the Labour Government tonight in the Lobby.
The only people who do not seem to be concerned about the power are Labour Members, including those on the Front Bench. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) made a virtue of the additional powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State and the LEAs.

Mr. Barry Jones: indicated assent.

Mrs. Browning: Clearly, we must examine the Bill carefully, to see whether those powers are justified or whether it is power for power's sake, as we believe it is. That is another reason why we shall oppose the Bill tonight.

Mr. Barry Jones: My right hon. Friend has taken the powers because the previous Government did not do what had to be done.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman should be very clear about where those powers are coming from. They are being taken not from Ministers or the Opposition, but from governors, parents, teachers and head teachers. That is not democracy.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that, according to any objective assessment, education in this country since 1945 has suffered because a succession of Governments have taken power to the centre and changed the structure of education? By the time that the structure, which is reluctant to change, has finally accepted it, a new Government has been elected or a new fashion has come into vogue. The education professionals want to be allowed to get on with teaching rather than constantly reorganising.

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The huge structural changes in the Bill will affect teachers, governing bodies and particularly parents who had taken decisions at a local level and must now re-adapt to the new conditions. Education will be accountable to others, including unelected bodies.
The Opposition are also concerned about the cost of the changes. Any change, however benign, usually involves some form of inherent cost. The additional powers that the Secretary of State seeks through the Bill and the additional responsibilities for LEAs will have cost implications. However, specific sums of money are not allocated to meeting those costs. Clearly, the changes that the Government are introducing in the Bill will be funded from the eduction budget—and that is particularly worrying.
At the beginning of the debate, the Secretary of State said, "We have the resources to honour our manifesto commitment." However, there will clearly be a shortfall in the education budget in meeting that manifesto commitment. That point is spelled out in the internal memorandum from the Department for Social Security which has received newspaper coverage in the past 24 or 48 hours.
I shall quote from one paragraph that is relevant to education. In its memorandum to Government Departments, including the Department of Education, the DSS says:
As you know, DSS—in common with all other Departments—is conducting a Comprehensive Spending Review. The Government has made clear its aim to release resources from social security in order to spend more on health and education and it is likely that a high proportion of the necessary savings will have to come"—
[Interruption.]—it is a memo all the same—
from benefits paid to sick and disabled people, including compensatory benefits for industrial injuries.
Either the right hon. Gentleman has not squared his departmental budget with the Chancellor, or the Government have only just discovered the additional costs inherent in the Bill—particularly those associated with the administration and bureaucracy that the new powers will require. The Government must now consider taking money from disability benefit in order to meet the departmental budget. [Interruption.]
Labour Members are moaning and groaning. I assure them that this is the second time—

Ms Hodge: It is not true.

Mrs. Browning: I had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Social Security on Thursday evening as part of the all-party disability group. When the memorandum was read to her, she had the opportunity to deny its implications, but she would not do so. The hon. Lady should not say that it is not true, when the Secretary of State chose categorically not to deny it on Thursday night.

Ms Hodge: I was saying that it was not true because the hon. Lady is frightening people who are in genuine need because of their disabilities with the threat that their needs will not be properly met by the Government, when they will be.

Mrs. Browning: I say to the hon. Lady for the second time from the Opposition Dispatch Box in three weeks that, if what I am saying is not true, and if she believes that it is frightening people, let the Prime Minister, in the Chamber or outside this place, deny what I am alleging. The right hon. Gentleman has refused so far to do so.
We are talking of costs and the dissipation of the education budget, which means that moneys will not be going where they are really needed, which is into the classroom. These are reasons why we shall not support the Bill. We know that there is a shortfall in the part of the budget which the Government said would come from the assisted places scheme. The argument has been supported by the Institute of Public Finance.
It is clear that there are many shortfalls in the Bill, and we look forward to the opportunity in Committee of trying to persuade the Government to change their mind.

We look to the Minister tonight to answer the many questions that we have put to the Government. I shall recap on some of those questions to which we are urgently seeking answers. Will the Minister limit the frequency of ballots on the future of grammar schools? If parents can vote for the abolition of grammar schools, why can they not vote for their introduction? Is the Minister to say this evening, "That's it, they will all wither on the vine"?
Will the Minister guarantee that the only individuals who will be able to vote on the future of grammar schools are those parents who have children attending those schools? Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House how many parents need to sign a petition to force a ballot on the future of grammar schools? Will he inform us also in what circumstances he would declare the result of a ballot null and void?
We would like to know also how many jobs will be lost as a result of the abolition of the funding agency with responsibility for schools. How many new employees will local education authorities have to take on to cope with the additional administrative costs resulting from the incorporation of GM schools into the state sector?
May we also have details of how much it will cost LEAs to draw up the early years development plan and education development plan? How much will it cost the taxpayer to pay for the ballots on the future of grammar schools? How much does the Minister expect the ballots on the future status of BM schools to cost? If the hon. Gentleman can give us all these costings, perhaps he will tell us also where the money will come from.

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I shall try to answer some of the questions of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mr. Browning), but in the minute or two that I have lost I may miss one or two of them. I will respond in writing to the questions that I do not cover in my reply.
I thank all those Members who have taken part in the debate, and I offer my commiserations to those Back-Bench Members who have not been able to make their contributions. I know from personal experience how frustrating it can be to sit in the Chamber for hours on end listening to other Members' speeches when, of course, the best speech of the evening would have been one's own, which failed to be delivered.
The Government are committed to building a modern Britain and a decent society. To achieve that, we shall need a world-class schools system. The Bill will play an important part in ensuring that we can have an education system that meets the needs of our children and our country. I am prepared to recognise—and take great pleasure in doing so—the vital role played by teachers in achieving that aim. Many teachers do a good job, often in difficult circumstances, and when we have a chance to debate an education measure such as this Bill, it is entirely appropriate that we should applaud those teachers who are doing such good work.
When the White Paper was published, the Government were prepared to listen. As a result of that consultation, we have made certain changes to our original proposals. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred to one or two changes that we made in relation to Church schools—changes that have been warmly welcomed. I was concerned to hear the observations from the


shadow Minister to the effect that concerns are still felt about Roman Catholic schools. I was unaware of such concerns. Cardinal Hume has written to say how pleased he is personally with the way in which the Government have responded to the observations of Roman Catholic schools. If the shadow Minister will provide details, I am sure that we, the Government, will be prepared to take them up.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend the shadow Minister may have been worried about the subject that I raised. I shall be grateful for the Minister's response because many parents are concerned. What of the Church grant-maintained primary schools, which will be forced into choosing to become secular foundation schools or to return to the status of voluntary-aided schools, which means that they will have to raise 15 per cent. of their finance? At present, they have the advantage of being denominational schools and not having to raise that finance. Will the Minister comment on that powerful point?

Mr. Byers: I am happy to do so. It is important for Members to recognise that every school will be able to choose its category—either immediately in respect of the majority of grant-maintained schools or within 12 or 18 months in respect of all other schools. Although there will be an indicative allocation at the beginning, it will not be for ever, and schools will be able to choose their final categories. We are able to offer that reassurance to the small, grant-maintained Church of England primary schools to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
We have made changes to reflect the concerns of the Churches and many other organisations and groups, but we accept that we cannot meet all those concerns. That applies to all consultation. Not everyone says the same thing, and there are different views and opinions about the direction in which the Government should go. As a result of the changes that have been introduced arising from the White Paper consultation, we now have a far better Bill than we had originally—one that will meet the needs of our children. The Bill carries forward our ambitious agenda in government to put in place our historic pledge to reduce infant class sizes to 30 or fewer. We want to get the basics right, and that means starting in the early years of education.
The Bill puts schools in the forefront of our drive to raise standards, but provides LEAs with a clear challenge to help them. We want to establish a genuine partnership. Schools want candid friends, but they do not want outside control, which will not happen as a result of the measures in the Bill.
The Bill also demonstrates the Government's readiness to take their share of responsibility at every level. The education action zones call for radical and original ideas. We want to liberate local initiative to solve local problems and to help to build the schools of the next century.
The Bill also modernises the 1944 settlement. Too much time and energy has been wasted on exploring divisions in the system, leaving not enough for thinking about what can unite us in raising standards and extending opportunities.

Mr. Ian Bruce: May I raise one matter which would have been in the speech that I did not make? How will

the Government determine the allocation of money for special pleadings, such as reducing class sizes, when the standard spending assessment in counties such as Dorset is always overspent and more money goes in, yet inner cities that keep being given more money never spend the total standard spending assessment? How will the Government determine who gets the money and who does not?

Mr. Byers: I can understand why the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), with his majority of 77, raises such very local issues. Let us look at the facts.

Mr. David Willetts: Answer the question.

Mr. Byers: I shall take great pleasure in doing so. The hon. Gentleman says that Dorset is being discriminated against in favour of inner-city authorities. In the settlement made by this Government, Dorset received a 6 per cent. increase in its education standard spending assessment over and above the national average of 5.7 per cent. For the first time in many years—certainly since the hon. Member for South Dorset was elected in 1987—new money is coming into schools in his constituency and in Dorset.
The shadow Secretary of State attacked the basic principle that he felt underpinned the Bill—a greater degree of centralisation. We believe that the basic principle is not centralisation but, in fact, decisive Government action—[Interruption.] Whereas Conservative Members were prepared to stand to one side and see a local education authority such as Hackney failing to deliver education to the 30,000 children in Hackney—

Mr. Hayes: Labour Hackney.

Mr. Byers: It does not matter whether it is Labour Hackney or not. Without fear or favour, we shall intervene to protect children in any local education authority. That is what we are prepared to do. When an authority fails to discharge its legal duties, as was the case in Hackney, this Government will not stand to one side. The previous Government washed their hands of any responsibility; this Government will not. There were 30,000 reasons for the intervention that we made in Hackney: the 30,000 children who are educated in Hackney. We have a responsibility to those children, and it is one that we shall discharge.

Mr. Dorrell: Do I take it, therefore, that the Minister no longer believes, as he did in 1993, that
all our experience clearly shows that nationalisation, and the dead hand of Whitehall, lead to a universal system up and down the country, rather than the diversity that the Government pretend to favour."—[Official Report, 2 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 179.]
Has he changed his mind?

Mr. Byers: I am always prepared to change my mind if I am wrong. In fact, however—I had the opportunity to refresh my memory when I left the debate for an hour—in the debate in 1993 the situation was quite different.
In this Bill, we are not prescribing how LEAs or schools are to improve standards. We are laying down targets to raise standards. It will be for local education authorities and individual schools to decide how they


reach those targets. They will be monitored against their performance, but we will not intervene. We will promote best practice and show what works well. It is only right that we should do that. It will not be imposed on anybody. We shall encourage and assist them to raise standards in schools.
That is totally counter to the Education Act 1993, which centralised control in the hands of the Secretary of State for Education. In fact, more than 400 new powers were given as a result of that measure. There are a modest 100 or so in this Bill. Those powers are there for a reason: to ensure that there will be no hiding place for under-performance—whether in schools, local education authorities or, yes, in government. We have a Secretary of State for Education and Employment who is prepared to be judged on raising standards, and a ministerial team who support him in that objective.

Mrs. Theresa May: Will the Minister explain why, if the Secretary of State will not be prescribing what happens in schools and LEAs, it is necessary for him to take powers to monitor and change what LEAs and schools put in their education development plan?

Mr. Byers: It is for the simple reason that the education development plan will be the way in which we monitor levels of performance. Targets will be set for LEAs—but we set targets for ourselves in government as well. We have been prepared to say that the present system, which we inherited after 18 years of the hon. Lady's party being in power, in which just 57 per cent. of 11-year-olds attained the required level in English and 54 per cent. did so in mathematics, is unacceptable. That is why we have said that at the end of the Parliament we want 80 per cent. of 11-year-olds to reach the required level in English and 75 per cent. to do so in mathematics. We are prepared to be judged on meeting those targets. We have said that LEAs need to be set targets as well. Indeed, in partnership with schools, LEAs need to set school-based targets.
We make no apology for adopting a system in which people are clearly accountable. This is not command and control; it is ensuring that we raise standards in our schools and give our children the best possible start. The previous Government washed their hands of that responsibility. We shall not do that.
Some concerns have been raised about how the infant class size pledge will be implemented. We are confident that, with the measures contained in the Bill and with the resources that we will get from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme, we will deliver that pledge. The pledge is that, by September 2001, no child of five, six or seven will be in a class of more than 30 pupils. That pledge is central to our standards agenda and it will be delivered, in contrast to what happened under the previous Administration.
We now have more than 500,000 primary schoolchildren in classes of more than 30 and the figure has continued to escalate. In 1992, 25 per cent. of primary school pupils were in classes of more than 30. That was bad enough, but in 1997, after five years of neglect, 33 per cent. of primary schoolchildren were in classes of more than 30.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) mentioned Devon. Five years ago, under the Conservative Administration, 28 per cent. of Devon primary schoolchildren were in classes of 30 or more, and the figure is now 38 per cent.

Mrs. Browning: Under Liberal Democrat control.

Mr. Byers: I blame central Government for not introducing a system that could deliver on the pledge. The Bill will ensure that, whoever is in control locally—Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or Labour—the pledge will be delivered, because children should not be subject to a local lottery to decide whether they are in smaller classes. We will deliver on our pledge.

Mrs. Browning: My constituency has many old rural schools which have Victorian campuses with no room for extra classrooms. If children at those schools have to bus seven or 10 miles in the early morning and at half-past three in the afternoon, to the next village because the existing primary school cannot accommodate them—and that is what will happen—their parents will not thank the Minister or the Labour party.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady has missed an important part of our proposals to deliver our pledge. The recurrent spending will be funded by the phasing out of the assisted places scheme. I take the point that some money will also need to be spent on buildings, and that is why the new deal capital made available in the Budget on 2 July will provide additional resources to ensure that that can happen.
In relation to the school framework, several concerns were raised about the ballots for grammar school status and the retention of a selective system. I assure the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) that, although technical regulations may not be ready in time for consideration of the Bill in Committee, we will make a full statement on our proposals, so that the policy will be clearly outlined at the relevant stage. It would be inappropriate to have technical legal regulations ready at that stage, but we will be able to answer all the specific questions that have been raised this evening.
We are still consulting, and I had a useful meeting with hon. Members who represent constituencies in Buckinghamshire about the particular problems faced by that area. I would be especially interested to meet the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) to discuss the issue that he raised earlier about North Yorkshire. It is clear that all 164 grammar schools are in a different situation, and we must ensure that we have the right approach for each of those schools.

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at this stage in the debate. If he will not publish the draft technical regulations, will he give an assurance that he will publish, before the relevant Committee stage, a statement of the principles that will determine the myriad regulations for which the Bill paves the way?

Mr. Byers: I am happy to give an undertaking that, when we get to the relevant Committee stage, we will give a clear statement of our approach to the regulations for grammar schools.
The Government inherited a bitter legacy from 18 years of Conservative Government. We inherited a school system with no sense of direction, lacking in confidence and under-resourced. That has to change—and as a result of this Bill it will change. We will cut class sizes for infants. We will provide a nursery place for every four-year-old. We will provide more than £1 billion for school building. This is a radical agenda from a radical, reforming Government. The Bill is based on education excellence for all and raising standards in our schools. It will bring glad tidings of comfort and joy to parents throughout the country. I commend the Bill to the House.

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 142.

Division No. 125]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Crausby, David


Ainger, Nick
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cyer, John (Hornchurch)


Allan, Richard
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Anderson, Janet(Rossendale)
(Copeland)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Ashton, Joe
Darvill, Keith


Atkins, Charlotte
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Baker, Norman
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Banks, Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Barron, Kevin
Dawson, Hilton


Battle, John
Denham, John


Bayley, Hugh
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dismore, Andrew


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Doran, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Dowd, Jim


Betts, Clive
Drew, David


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Drown, Ms Julia


Boateng, Paul
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Borrow, David
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Brake, Tom
Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Edwards, Huw


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Efford, Clive


Byers, Stephen
Ennis, Jeff


Cable, Dr Vincent
Etherington, Bill


Caborn, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Cann, Jamie
Follett, Barbara


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Don (Bath)


Casale, Roger
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foulkes, George


Chaytor, David
Gapes, Mike


Church, Ms Judith
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clapham, Michael
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Dr Lynda
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clelland, David
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clwyd, Ann
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Coaker, Vernon
Hancock, Mike


Colman, Tony
Hanson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Harris, Dr Evan


Cooper, Yvette
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Corbyn, Jeremy
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hepburn, Stephen


Cousins, Jim
Hesford, Stephen


Cranston, Ross
Hewitt, Ms Patricia





Hill, Keith
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Hara, Eddie


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Olner, Bill


Hoey, Kate
Öpik, Lembit


Hoon, Geoffrey
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pearson, Ian


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Perham, Ms Linda


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr Kim
Pike, Peter L


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pollard, Kerry


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
Pound, Stephen


Hurst, Alan
Powell, Sir Raymond


Hutton, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Illsley, Eric
Prosser, Gwyn


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jenkins, Brian
Radice, Giles


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Rendel, David


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Robertson, Rt Hon George


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
(Hamilton S)


Jones, Ms Jenny
Roche, Mrs Barbara


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Keetch, Paul
Salter, Martin


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Sanders, Adrian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Savidge, Malcolm


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Sawford, Phil


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Sedgemore, Brian


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Shaw, Jonathan


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Laxton, Bob
Shipley, Ms Debra


Lepper, David
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Levitt, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Linton, Martin
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Love, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McAvoy, Thomas
Snape, Peter


McDonagh, Siobhain
Soley, Clive


McFall, John
Spellar, John


McIsaac, Shona
Squire, Ms Rachel


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Startey, Dr Phyllis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McLeish, Henry
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McNulty, Tony
Stinchcombe, Paul


McWalter, Tony
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stunell, Andrew


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Martlew, Eric
(Dewsbury)


Maxton, John
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Timms, Stephen


Michael, Alun
Tipping, Paddy


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Todd, Mark


Milburn, Alan
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mitchell, Austin
Touhig, Don


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Ward, Ms Claire


Mountford, Kali
Wareing, Robert N


Mudie, George
Watts, David


Mullin, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Willis, Phil


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Winnick, David


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Wise, Audrey


Norris, Dan
Wood, Mike






Woolas, Phil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. David Jamieson.


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)



Wyatt, Derek





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gale, Roger


Amess, David
Garnier, Edward


Arbuthnot, James
Gibb, Nick


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gill, Christopher


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Baldry, Tony
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Bercow, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gray, James


Blunt, Crispin
Green, Damian


Body, Sir Richard
Greenway, John


Boswell, Tim
Grieve, Dominic


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brady, Graham
Hammond, Philip


Brazier, Julian
Hawkins, Nick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hayes, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Heald, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Burns, Simon
Horam, John


Butterfill, John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Jack, Fit Hon Michael


(Chipping Barnet)
Johnson Smith,


Chope, Christopher
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clappison, James
Key, Robert


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


(Rushcliffe)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lansley, Andrew


Collins, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Letwin, Oliver


Cran, James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lidington, David


Dafis, Cynog
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Day, Stephen
Loughton, Tim


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Luff, Peter


Duncan, Alan
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Duncan Smith, Iain
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Nigel
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Faber, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Fallon, Michael
Maples, John


Flight, Howard
Mates, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fox, Dr Liam
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fraser, Christopher
May, Mrs Theresa





Nicholls, Patrick
Swayne, Desmond


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Page, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Paice, James
Tredinnick, David


Pickles, Eric
Trend, Michael


Prior, David
Tyrie, Andrew


Randall, John
Viggers, Peter


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Walter, Robert


Robathan, Andrew
Wardle, Charles


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Waterson, Nigel


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wells, Bowen


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Ruffley, David
Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


St Aubyn, Nick
Wilkinson, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Willetts, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Soames, Nicholas
Woodward, Shaun


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Sir Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spring, Richard



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. John M. Taylor and Sir David Madel.


Streeter, Gary

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — SCHOOL STANDARDS AND FRAMEWORK BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the School Standards and Framework Bill, it is expedient to authorize—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any sums required for the making by the Secretary of State of grants or loans under the Act;
(b) any other expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act; and
(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable by virtue of any other Act; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Withernsea and South-East Holderness

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. James Cran: I am very grateful indeed to have the opportunity to raise what I consider to be a matter of some importance to my constituency: the difficulties of the town of Withernsea and of—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Will hon. Members please not hold a Christmas party at this moment?

Mr. Cran: I am very grateful indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was manfully doing my best under the circumstances.
The problem is serious; it is not one of which I have first-hand knowledge, in the sense of having lived with it since I have been the Member of Parliament for Beverley, because I inherited the area at the most recent boundary commission change; but I am becoming increasingly concerned about what I have seen in the town, and about the fact that, as far as I can see, the problem has simply been ignored by almost every agency that could possibly exist for the benefit and help of such towns and areas.
What has occurred is simply a downward spiral of economic and social decline. The town and the area are unable to get out of that spiral on their own. I am grateful to see the Minister here. She knows something about the issue, because she has written to me on the subject, so what I hear will at least be first hand.
The Minister knows that I am concerned about the condition of the town. I could spend a long time outlining the indices of deprivation, but I shall confine myself to noting that, on any such index, the town is at the bottom, if the bottom is the worst. Unemployment in the area is the highest in East Yorkshire and, I suspect, for quite a way around. The number of cars per household shows the same situation, and long-term illness is the worst not only in my constituency but in the whole of East Yorkshire. The quality of housing is, alas, not what it should be: local tax figures show that housing is all in the lower bands. Almost more sadly, educational attainment is below that in the rest of the area. No one can be other than concerned about that.
In passing, I note that I probably did not get many votes from the town and the area, but that does not matter. We must consider such problems in a non-political way. As soon as I saw the problems, I was determined to do what I could to bring them to the attention of those who can take decisions that might change the situation. Despite the fact that there is great willingness for self-help, there are no pump-priming resources to help people to develop a strategy for tourism. After all, it was one of the great towns of Victorian England that grew up at the seaside to serve as holiday resorts for cities such as Hull.
Community spirit undoubtedly still exists, but I worry that, if all the town's requests for help continue to be refused, people will come to the likes of me and ask what is the point of going to the next port of call for further representations. I am trying desperately hard to get them

to understand that we have to keep going. It is only by speaking to the Minister that we can bring the problems to the attention of the Government.
People tell me, rightly, that millions of pounds were spent to help our great cities when they were in decline. I have no difficulty with that proposition. The nearest city to my constituency, the great city of Kingston upon Hull, got hundreds of millions of pounds. The difference that that has made in the past 20 years has been as chalk and cheese to what has happened only a few miles down the road. Withernsea is a much smaller community of about 6,000 people. It has fallen through every resource net that I can think of. The result is the decline that we are discussing.
I am pleased that the Minister nods. That shows that she knows the problems of such areas. The problem is illustrated by the fact that Swanland in my old constituency qualifies for European regional development funds, but, for reasons that I will never understand, Withernsea, with all its problems, has no access to them. I suspect that arbitrary lines were drawn on a map. I dare say that it was done under the Government whom I supported at the general election, but that does not mean that it is right; it clearly is not. That is why I hope that the Minister and all the other decision takers will look at the matter dispassionately and, if such situations can occur, ask what in heaven's name they can do to reorient policy to help such communities.
As I have already said, the community spirit exists. I am pleased to say that the belief in self-help is also present, which I find quite extraordinary given what I have seen in the town, and the difficulties that it has faced and still suffers. The Minister will be aware of the Withernsea 2000 partnership, which aims to consolidate the views of the key decision takers in the area—the East Yorkshire council, the training and enterprise council, the Yorkshire tourist board, the town council and even individuals.
I am delighted to say that there also entrepreneurs in the town who want to contribute something to help the process of regeneration. They simply cannot do that on their own; they need a helping hand to offer not just encouragement but resources. In the scheme of such things, the resources necessary are not that great, but the area needs such pump priming.
The Minister also knows better than anyone else that Withernsea entered, meritoriously, the rural challenge competition for the second time. It was the only bid that came from East Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire, but again the town's bid failed. I can do no better than read from the letter that was sent to me on 25 November by the Minister for the Environment, who stated:
I thought I should write to let you know that East Riding of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire's Turning the Tide—Withernsea bid has been unsuccessful in this year's round of Rural Challenge. The competition, which is sponsored on our behalf by the Rural Development Commission, aims to encourage innovative partnerships and new ideas for regeneration of the countryside.
The outcome of that competition is wonderful for the area that won because it will be able to use whatever plans it has for the regeneration of its particular neck of the woods, but we are on our tod yet again.
We drew some comfort from the Minister's letter, in which he also wrote:
Officials from the Commission are ready to discuss with the partnership the outcome of the competition and whether it may be possible to provide support for the project by alternative means.


The words "alternative means" are important, because I understand that the other sources of finance available to the Rural Development Commission require matching funding. I understand perfectly well why that condition is part of the deal, but I regret to say that, apart from East Yorkshire council, there is not much matching funding of any significant proportion to be had in the town or the surrounding area. I dare say some exists, but it is simply not available in the amounts required to liberate funds of any size from the commission.
On the basis of the Minister's letter, I went hot foot to see the director of operations at the RDC, and we had a constructive meeting. I do not believe that I betray any confidence when I say that he explained to me exactly why towns such as Withernsea have such problems. I do not believe that I betray any confidence if I say that he understood exactly the position of places such as Withernsea.
What do we do about that? Again, I do not believe I am betraying any confidence between us when I recount how said that he would do his best within tight resources to see whether there was money here, there or wherever that could be liberated for a strategy to develop the town's tourist potential or small businesses in the town. He was keen to try to do that, but he spent some time pointing out to me that he, too, has difficulties with the schemes that he and the RDC operate. None the less, I took from that meeting the fact that the Rural Development Commission was not going to walk away from the situation, but would look for ways to help the town.
I understand that the Withernsea partnership has had a meeting with the regional RDC. I have not had a report of the meeting's outcome; if the Minister has received a report, perhaps she could tell me what happened. We need to know whether the regional officials mirrored the conversation that I had with the director of operations, who sounded a constructive note and said that the RDC would try to find ways to help.
I could say a great deal more about the details of the case, but I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say rather than to listen to myself. I should like to hear from the Minister that she recognises the problem that I have outlined and the fact that the town cannot succeed on its own; I should also like to hear that the Government will not walk away from the situation and related problems elsewhere.
I hope that the hon. Lady will consider meeting the members of the Withernsea partnership. It will be difficult for them to get down here, as the town is not flush with money, but they will be in Whitehall if the Minister is prepared to meet them. It would be even better if, when she was passing nearby—I am not suggesting a particular date or time—she came to see for herself the difficulties in the area. It would be as much of an education for her as, without doubt, it has been for me.
On one of his tours, the Prince of Wales managed to come along. I was not privy to what he thought, but people who were present have suggested to me that he did not particularly like what he saw. I hope that the Minister will consider all those points. I also hope, more importantly, that she will be open minded about the policy framework. If we have a competition—I understand that it existed under the previous Government—from which

only one winner can emerge, that poses significant difficulties for all the other partnerships that have put together good plans. What happens to them? We clearly have to look at this policy stance. If the result on 1 May had been different, I would have been giving exactly the same speech to a Conservative Minister.
I hope that I have outlined the problems—I think that the Minister knows them herself. Confidence is important in such situations, and it is easy for confidence to ebb away from the community so that people say to themselves that there is nothing they can do and nobody is interested in their condition, so they might as well pack up shop. That means that those who are prepared to shove the thing along and do something about the community spirit all melt into the background and the situation becomes worse. I do not think that that will happen, but it could, and I should like to avert that.
I am a pretty right-wing character in the political framework, but I am not particularly daft, and when I see the position that exists in Withernsea I know perfectly well that there is no alternative to the pump priming that only Government can provide.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran) on raising this extremely important subject and on managing to acquire the last Adjournment debate before Christmas. I cannot act exactly like Santa Claus for him tonight, but I want to emphasise that I have listened carefully to what he has had to say about Withernsea, and I should like to thank him for bringing the issue to the attention of the House.
The problems are difficult and of quite long standing, so they will be hard to address, but I want to be as encouraging as possible in the face of the disappointment suffered by the partnership as a result of the recent decision on rural challenge. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would regard this as encouraging, but I would certainly be very happy to meet a delegation from the area—as he suggests. If they get in touch with my office, we can put that in train and discuss where they might be able to go from here.
I come from the east coast of Yorkshire. I was born just up the way in Bridlington, so I appreciate the uniqueness of that part of the country—its beauties as well as its problems. In part, its unspoilt character and remoteness add to its difficulties in terms of economic regeneration. When preparing for the debate, I noticed that the area lost its last railway link in 1964 as part. of the Beeching cuts, so the decline has been going on for some time, and it will not be arrested overnight. There has also been a change in the nature of tourism in the United Kingdom. Some would say that the glory days of seaside resorts are long gone, but it is certain that the change in the pattern of tourism has presented many areas with difficult strategic choices.
As a Government, I hope that we can put in place programmes and policies that alleviate the problems of areas such as Withernsea and south-east Holderness. I know that the people there must have been disappointed not to secure resources under rural challenge, but I want to provide some encouragement tonight. The hon.


Gentleman admitted honestly that, in a competition, there are winners and losers; that is certainly the case with rural challenge. Of the 17 national entrants to the competition, only six were chosen and there was an allocated share of £5 million, so many more areas were disappointed than were celebrating.
I want to spend a few minutes focusing on the many strengths of Withernsea's bid, because I strongly believe that within the bid lie the seeds of Withernsea's recovery. First, there was its strong partnership approach: a solid partnership has been established and that can be built on. It includes all the key local partners, including the local authority, Humberside training and enterprise council, English Partnerships and the voluntary sector. A report in the Yorkshire Post dated 3 December suggests that the partnership will look at ways of moving forward some of the projects without rural challenge support. I would encourage that.
It is possible that various elements of the bid could be successfully supported through the Rural Development Commission's rural development programme, which is available to the partnership and which will support worthwhile economic and community projects developed by the public, voluntary and private sectors. It will be for the partnership to decide which priorities it wants to push and how they will fit into the rural development programme strategy and meet the objectives relating to Withernsea.
I understand that, as the hon. Gentleman said, the RDC has already met the rural challenge partners and encouraged them to revisit the bid and consider which projects could be progressed through that programme. I know that the hon. Gentleman has lent his support to the partnership and will do all he can to ensure that its good work continues.
Secondly, community capacity building is another of the bid's strengths that should be concentrated on in future. I congratulate the partnership on attempting a solution to Withernsea's problems that is based on people. I am aware that a formal consultation process was established during the rural challenge bid process, and I would like that to continue. The partnership acknowledges that the capacity of the community is low; I suggest that that be made an immediate priority. As the hon. Gentleman said, community confidence and economic regeneration are inextricably linked—neither can happen without the other. As a Yorkshirewoman, I am aware that it is a proud area—the community has the will to become involved, but the solution will be neither quick nor easy.
Thirdly, the bid contained a strong private sector input and I was impressed that the partnership did not simply rely on a tourism—based solution to the area's problems. The mass tourism market in the United Kingdom has changed, and the tourists who flocked to Withernsea in their tens of thousands in the 1950s and 1960s are not coming back in the same numbers. I live in New Brighton, which is in a similar position. Withernsea's decline has been gradual, so there needs to be effective private sector investment to turn the situation around.
I realise that, without rural challenge funding, the improvements will take longer to effect, but I know that the key economic partners—the local authority, Humberside training and enterprise council, English Partnerships and the RDC—have started the process, and

are keen to keep it going. There is much to build on and much that can be retrieved from the bid for the benefit of the people of Withernsea.

Mr. Cran: As I understand it, a number of proposals can be retrieved from the bid, but the problem is the issue of matching funding. Can the Minister give us any hope there?

Angela Eagle: Matching funding is certainly required, and we would have to work with local partners to see where that could be got from. Perhaps we should place that subject on the agenda of the meeting that I have just offered. Certainly the local authority would have to give some priority to the area if we were to try to put together some moneys to make progress possible. I know that English Partnerships has a development of small industrial sites in the area, but it is 70 per cent. empty, so we must do more to generate interest and involvement.
I want to say something about how Government policy will help the economic development of Withemsea. We are putting forward policies to help the regions. We strongly believe that the future success of the English regions depends on the co-operation and participation of the entire community. With that in mind, we have set five key priorities.
The first priority is integration. One of our major steps was to integrate the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport. That enables us to concentrate on infrastructure developments of the type that are strategically important to Withernsea's recovery.
The second priority is decentralisation, which could also be important. We said in our manifesto that local decision making should be made more accountable to local people. The regional development agencies are a key element in our plans to achieve that.
The third priority is regeneration. We believe that this is not confined to making physical improvements to the infrastructure; it is equally important to regenerate communities, improve the social fabric and foster equality and cohesion.
The fourth priority is partnership. We must work in partnership with the public and private sectors and the voluntary sector to make our policies most effective. There are already many good examples of local partnerships in the region and I feel, as a result of what I know of Withernsea, that a very promising example of such a partnership has been developed locally.
The fifth priority is sustainability. Sustainable development must be built into all our policies, which means combining economic goals with environmental and social ones—improving people's quality of life and helping them to achieve their potential while making sensible use of natural resources.
Government policy will ensure that areas such as Withernsea and south-east Holderness can play an effective role in economic development at regional level. The index of deprivation is being updated. It will recognise need at three levels: district, ward and enumeration district. That should allow Withernsea to register at least as an area of concern in a much more obvious way than may have been the case in the past.
We are conducting a comprehensive review of regeneration spending with the aim of recognising needs at these levels and creating policies that can address them,


or at least allow regional development agencies to address them. RDAs will have a remit to regenerate areas of need—such as Withernsea—in their geographical areas. Other initiatives, such as welfare to work, capital receipts, employment and health initiatives, may be tied together to create a package to take Withernsea forward.
We continue to assess and evaluate the impact of our programmes, and we are looking forward and starting the process of considering how regeneration policies should be shaped for the future. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning recently launched a consultation paper entitled "The Way Forward", which is intended to facilitate a debate on the future of Government regeneration programmes. I know that the East Riding of Yorkshire council and the local partnership will want to comment on the proposals and play a full part in the consultation process to ensure that the needs of Withernsea and similar areas are taken fully into account in regeneration programmes of the future.
Many of the themes discussed in the paper are those that the Withernsea partnership addressed in its rural challenge bid, which will stand it in excellent stead in future. There is, for example, the need for a strategic approach. The challenge bid was strategy based; it employed a targeted approach to regeneration, which is vital to ensuring that the activity is properly focused and has local impact. We intend any future regeneration programme to be strategy led.
We are pleased to note that local partners are beginning to pull together to try to improve their prospects. I spoke earlier about the need for effective partnerships. Community involvement is also important: Withernsea and south-east Holderness must continue to develop community capacity. That is the key to long-term sustainable development.
As I said, there are other areas that we may be able to bring to bear on the problem—welfare to work, for example. We hope that that will begin to turn the tide in the area and that our proposals will assist Withernsea with programmes targeted on more isolated areas. The focus for welfare to work is the young unemployed; the worst consequence of unemployment is its effects on the human spirit.
Work has already started in Withernsea that will ensure provision of a high-quality programme for the young unemployed. The local Employment Service office has set up a rural East Riding specialist strand to present suggestions as to how to help the more isolated communities. All providers under the new deal—whether they are in the voluntary sector, in further education or private sector training providers—have been asked by the local Employment Service office to come up with plans to help unemployed clients in rural areas. Community and distance learning packages will also be available. Providers are located across the district and will therefore be well placed to meet the needs of clients in rural and coastal areas.
We are determined that welfare to work should make a real and tangible contribution to the improvement of the economy. Strengthening the capacity of the English regions to address the issues will also be important to ensuring that, strategically, areas such as Withernsea—which time has passed by and which are never big enough to attract attention—will have the prospect of being taken into account at regional development agency level. We trust that packages will be put together to help to give hope.
As I have said, we believe that there are firm foundations in the bid on which to build—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, till Monday 12 January, pursuant to Resolution [15 December].

Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.